On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:55:51PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
darkjames...@darkjames.pl wrote:
+ if (cf-count frames_count framenum = cf-count) {
+/* XXX, what we should do when new frames were received during
rescaning but user clicked
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Jakub Zawadzki darkjames...@darkjames.plwrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:55:51PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
darkjames...@darkjames.pl wrote:
+ if (cf-count frames_count framenum = cf-count) {
+/* XXX,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:32:26PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
If we want to have bug #6208 fixed in 1.x we need to revert r45189 + do:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6208#c9
I'm not sure if I have time for writting such patch, but If anyone write one,
I can review.
So should r45182 and r45189 be scheduled for backport to fix bug 6208?
- Chris
From: wireshark-commits-boun...@wireshark.org
[wireshark-commits-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of darkja...@wireshark.org
[darkja...@wireshark.org]
Sent: Friday, September
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Maynard, Chris wrote:
So should r45182 and r45189 be scheduled for backport to fix bug 6208?
I think r45189 is buggy, if wireshark is refiltering, and you get new packets,
some packets might have wrong relative timestamps (displayed, captured),
and wrong
