https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5279
Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-22 10:28:49 PST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I implemented option 1 in revision 35244.
>
> Chris, could you check whether this indeed provides enough flexibility for
> (un)marking sets of packets?
Thanks Sake! The new mark/unmark behavior makes a lot more sense now and I
think it provides all the flexibility needed.
> I also looked at the "Ignore" options, but I believe they can be left as is. It
> kind of makes sense to be able to un-ignore all ignored packet independent of
> the current displayed packets. Unignoring only displayed packets is kind of
> useless as they are only shown when ".... || frame.ignored==1" is used as
> display filter.
I hadn't really played around too much with the "ignore packet" feature before,
so I didn't realize those packets would not show up at all if a display filter
was applied. So, because they don't show up as <Ignored> like they do when
there's no display filter applied, I agree with you in that there's no point
changing the existing behavior for ignored packets. If that ever changes
(i.e., ignored packets that also match a display filter show up as <Ignored>,
then I think it would make sense to change it similarly. Until then, closing
the bug as fixed. Thanks again.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.