Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard@...> writes:
Joerg Mayer <jmayer <at> ...> 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.
There was definitely consensus on the file size change from IEC -> SI, so I committed that change in r53728. And for now I just documented the capture buffer size as "MiB" since that's the correct units. I have no problem changing the implementation of the capture buffer size to SI units though, if anyone thinks it makes more sense to do that. r53728 is scheduled for 1.10, but I decided to leave 1.8 alone. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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)