Richard van der Hoff wrote: > Richard van der Hoff wrote: >> I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this, >> somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all >> on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a >> shame if you spent weeks on it and we had to say "uh, no, you've got the >> wrong idea." > > Apart from anything else, if we go and change half of the dissector > fields, is that going to upset people who are used to the old names?
Maybe, but I'd say correctness is better (think of the new users over the next N years who might find the field easier or find it more intuitive). (I say that even though I haven't looked at what the actual changes are...) _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
