https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16423
--- Comment #5 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 37003 merged by Stig Bjørlykke:
Qt: Allow renaming personal profile
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37003
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16423
--- Comment #4 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 37003 had a related patch set uploaded by Stig Bjørlykke:
Qt: Allow renaming personal profile
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37003
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16423
Roland Knall changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16530
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Weant ---
Patch submitted addressing all mentioned items:
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/37002/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16515
--- Comment #6 from Peter Wu ---
Yep I realize that and will therefore ask the community (wireshark-users,
wireshark-dev) before making such a change. And if it is done, then it will be
clearly marked in the release notes.
--
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16515
--- Comment #5 from j...@wizmail.org ---
I'd be ok with that - but you're changing some existing behaviour. I don't
know how solid that is regarded as being a committed interface.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16515
--- Comment #4 from Peter Wu ---
Out-of-the-box thinking with a counter-proposal: what about always making the
tcp.ack field relative since tcp.ack_raw provides the value from wire?
Then change the preference for relative ACK numbers to
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16521
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Weant ---
Somehow my commit didn't match up with my bug submission. I've pushed a patch
for this in Change 37001.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16537
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Weant ---
Somehow my commit didn't match up with my bug submission. I've pushed a patch
for this in Change 37001.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16528
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Weant ---
Somehow my commit didn't match up with my bug submission. I've pushed a patch
for this in Change 37001.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16522
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Weant ---
Somehow my commit didn't match up with my bug submission. I've pushed a patch
for this in Change 37001.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16524
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Weant ---
Somehow my commit didn't match up with my bug submission. I've pushed a patch
for this in Change 37001.
https://code.wireshark.org/review/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16538
Matthew Weant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|INCOMPLETE |IN_PROGRESS
--
You are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16538
Matthew Weant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Enhancement: Mobile|Enhancement: packet-eap.c
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16538
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Weant ---
(In reply to Pascal Quantin from comment #3)
> I know what the realm looks like, but this has nothing to do with
> packet-e212.c That's why the bug title should be changed so as to specify
> which
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16538
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Weant ---
Fixed this for Realm MCC/MNC codes for packet-eap.c in
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/37001/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16539
Matthew Weant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16539
Jaap Keuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|Trivial |Enhancement
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16539
--- Comment #2 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 36999 had a related patch set uploaded by Matthew Weant:
EAP: AT_NOTIFICATION Dissection
https://code.wireshark.org/review/36999
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16532
--- Comment #2 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 36998 had a related patch set uploaded by Matthew Weant:
IEEE802.11: Cleaned ANQP fields & add hidden fields
https://code.wireshark.org/review/36998
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16540
--- Comment #4 from Razi Levin ---
Kafka version: 2.4.1
I guess that is the issue. Any plans to fix it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16524
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Weant ---
(In reply to Dario Lombardo from comment #2)
> Can you provide a sample campture? It will make the fix easier.
I'm working this fix today along with the other related bugs. I haven't posted
PCAPs
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16524
Dario Lombardo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lom...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16335
Balling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #17568|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16534
--- Comment #3 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 36996 had a related patch set uploaded by Matthew Weant:
IEEE802.11: HS2.0 ANQP Friendly Name Subtree Fix
https://code.wireshark.org/review/36996
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16335
--- Comment #6 from Martin Mathieson ---
(In reply to Balling from comment #5)
> Lol, you still did not address memory leaks in my first message. BTW, I can
> rerun PVS studio build as you asked? ;)
Yeah, Lol, neither did you. If you
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16335
--- Comment #5 from Balling ---
Lol, you still did not address memory leaks in my first message. BTW, I can
rerun PVS studio build as you asked? ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16515
--- Comment #3 from j...@wizmail.org ---
The other user-case I thought of (though I've never needed in real life) was
for packets at a known data-offset in a stream. Eg. a STARTTLS command.
Yes, the command itself likely has a dissector -
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16540
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Smolinski ---
Which Kafka version are you testing against? The protocol evolves, the
dissector works with Kafka up to 2.3 and the recent one is 2.5.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16540
Alexis La Goutte changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr.smolinski...@gmail.co
30 matches
Mail list logo
