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. -hadriel ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
