On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Christopher Maynard <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there any reason to keep "-G fields2" since field 8 (blurb) is redundant > with field 6 (also blurb) and we have "-G fields3", which does not contain > any redundant information? > > I propose either: > 1) Eliminating the current "-G fields2", then renaming "-G fields3" to the > new "-G fields2" so that we would only have 2 reports, "-G fields" and "-G > fields2", or > > 2) Just adding the 2 extra fields from the current "-G fields3" report to > the "-G fields" report and eliminating both "-G fields2" and "-G fields3" > reports.
These are quite old (2004, 2005) and the original commits don't give any indication why they weren't just added to "-G fields", but presumably there was a reason. Gilbert was the original author, perhaps he can shed some light. If there isn't a strong reason to keep them as-is, I vote we merge everything together into "-G fields". Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
