On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hkap...@acmepacket.com> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hkap...@acmepacket.com> >> wrote: >> >>> How about this: we make '-d' usable in one-pass or two-pass modes, based on >>> '-2' etc.; and we make the '-R' automatically-and-only be for two-pass >>> mode, implicitly enabling '-2'. I know you dislike tshark buffering unless >>> explicitly told to do so, but I really think people don't perceive the >>> difference of buffering vs. not in tshark except for the performance impact >>> - what they perceive is whether the output is what they expected it to be. >>> Making them add another option switch that basically means "make it work", >>> is kinda silly. :) >> >> I'd be alright with this. >> >> Perhaps, however, have -R on its own behave as it currently does (and >> as 1-pass -d will), but print a warning to the effect of "-R on its >> own is deprecated. Did you mean -2R or -d?". This would mean that >> scripts using -R will continue to work as-is (unless they choke trying >> to parse the warning, but that's unlikely since it will be to stderr >> not stdout). At some future date we can decide to either disable >> single-pass -R entirely or have it imply -2. > > Sounds fine to me too.
I've updated the bug with a link to this discussion and a quick summary. Were you planning to code this or should I add it to my todo list? Cheers, Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ 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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
