Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC)
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@...> writes:
What do others think before I make any changes to SI units?Please change to SI in these cases.
So you're recommending moving to SI prefixes for both the file size autostop condition and the capture buffer size, or just the file size? I just wanted to confirm because I gather from Evan's response that only the file size should be changed. Concerning the capture buffer size, I'm fine either way, but if we don't change it to SI, then I'll change the units from MB -> MiB. Either way, the next question I have is what to backport? The earlier SI -> IEC change was backported to 1.10 in order to better document the actual values used, but no effective code changes were made (other than the bug fix). If we switch to SI units, then that would be a more impactful code change in the 1.10 trunk. No changes were backported previously to the 1.8 trunk, but maybe they should be as well? Personally, I am still inclined to backport the change anyway so that the units and code match with what the user probably expects, so in that respect, the backport could be seen as a bug fix. Unless there are objections, I'll schedule the changes for 1.10. And 1.8 too, I suppose. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 01)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Evan Huus (Dec 01)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Joerg Mayer (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Graham Bloice (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Guy Harris (Dec 02)