Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Consensus needed on bug #813
From: Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:19:25 +0100 (CET)
Hi,

Implement the change, but make the current line a hidden item, so the
filter expressions remain valid. I know we shouldn't make hidden items
since people won't know that they can filter on them, but that is just the
point here! It provides a smooth transistion.

Oh, and the "Time delta from previous frame:" change of course.

Thanx,
Jaap

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Michael Tuexen wrote:

> What about
> Time since reference or first frame: 0.000000000 seconds
>                                ^^^^^
> versus
> Time delta from previous packet: 0.000000000 seconds
>                           ^^^^^^
>
> Just wondering...
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> On Jan 6, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
>
> >
> > Can we get a consensus on whether or not to make the change
> > suggested in
> > bug #813 so we can close it out? :)  I'm leaning toward making the
> > change, but that would mean also changing the display filter that
> > people
> > are used to.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > In a sample output from tethereal on a debian box which corresponds to
> > what I see in ethereal on my XP box. The frame size is properly
> > labeled
> > in the first line of output. On line 6 of output the frame length is
> > improperly being labeled as Packet Length:. Obviously this is a
> > trivial
> > issue, but since ethereal tries to be very strict in it's
> > description of
> > a frame, it is clearly inaccurate to say a packet is the same thing
> > as a
> > frame. Hope this isn't too annoying a thing to point out.
> >
> > 1 Frame 1 (60 bytes on wire, 60 bytes captured)
> >     Arrival Time: Mar 13, 2006 14:59:10.977241000
> >     Time delta from previous packet: 0.000000000 seconds
> >     Time since reference or first frame: 0.000000000 seconds
> >     Frame Number: 1
> >     Packet Length: 60 bytes
> >     Capture Length: 60 bytes
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
>