On Aug 14, 2011, at 2:04 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Michael Tüxen wrote:
>
>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, why do we build the same string ("%s\n>> size='small'>%s") 4 different places?
>> Two for the initial setup of the interface
On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Michael Tüxen wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>
>> BTW, why do we build the same string ("%s\n> size='small'>%s") 4 different places?
> Two for the initial setup of the interface list, one might be able
> to reduce it to one.
insert_new_
On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:36 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>
>> What about displaying nothing in the interface list, and "none" in the
>> details?
>> Like in the attached patch.
>
> That sounds good. Any objections?
Already done. I had this on the T
On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM, wrote:
>> Log:
>> Say "none" rather than "unknown" if there are no IP addresses; in most
>> if not all cases, it's not that we don't know the IP addresses, it's
>> that there are no IP addresses to know.
>
On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
> What about displaying nothing in the interface list, and "none" in the
> details?
> Like in the attached patch.
That sounds good. Any objections?
___
Sent via:Wiresh
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM, wrote:
> Log:
> Say "none" rather than "unknown" if there are no IP addresses; in most
> if not all cases, it's not that we don't know the IP addresses, it's
> that there are no IP addresses to know.
What about displaying nothing in the interface list, and "no
