Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: tshark -G fields2
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:18:24 -0400
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com> wrote:
Is there any reason to keep "-G fields2" since field 8 (blurb) is redundant with field 6 (also blurb) and we have "-G fields3", which does not contain any redundant information? I propose either: 1) Eliminating the current "-G fields2", then renaming "-G fields3" to the new "-G fields2" so that we would only have 2 reports, "-G fields" and "-G fields2", or 2) Just adding the 2 extra fields from the current "-G fields3" report to the "-G fields" report and eliminating both "-G fields2" and "-G fields3" reports.
These are quite old (2004, 2005) and the original commits don't give any indication why they weren't just added to "-G fields", but presumably there was a reason. Gilbert was the original author, perhaps he can shed some light. If there isn't a strong reason to keep them as-is, I vote we merge everything together into "-G fields". Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- tshark -G fields2 Christopher Maynard (Apr 04)
- Re: tshark -G fields2 Evan Huus (Apr 04)
- Re: tshark -G fields2 Christopher Maynard (Apr 06)
- Re: tshark -G fields2 Evan Huus (Apr 04)