Comment # 14
on bug 12765
from Jeff Morriss
(In reply to Guy Harris from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jeff Morriss from comment #12)
> > That being said:
> >
> > 1) Why is DSCP even a column? We have custom columns for this kind of
> > thing. (Also see the next comment.)
> >
> > 2) If you add the DSCP field as a custom column (expand the DSF field, right
> > click on the DSC field, and select "Apply as Column") then you have your
> > choice as to whether you see EF or 46 (right click on the custom column and
> > enable or disable "Resolve Names" to change the behavior). Yes, this is
> > another reason to remove the hard-coded DSC column...
>
> 3) There are columns and fields as in "a user wants to look at it on the
> screen or in the printed output of TShark" and there are columns and fields
> as in "I want to feed this to a program to process".
>
> I'm not certain, but this appears to be complaining about the first of
> those, not the second of those.
It is.
> For the first of those, the main goal of changes should be to improve
> readability, not to preserve compatibility - humans can learn new things
> without needing code changes. Unfortunately, not all humans agree on what's
> more readable or less readable.
A very good point. I'd still argue (though less vehemently :-)) that the
change shouldn't have been backported. Humans can learn new stuff but they
shouldn't have to when going from 2.0.4 to 2.0.5 (IMO). But maybe I'm
projecting too much of a RHEL-like view of stability.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
