On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 11:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:57 +0200, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > jan.kratochvil wrote: > > > > If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat. > > > > > > This overstates the case. Alex's proposal clearly solves some problems. > > > > This is just about wording. > > > > My reaction was to: > > I don't think there has to be a specific "problem". > > ... but then he goes on to list 4 or 5 different features, > which are all nice to haves at a very small cost. > > I'll add one more case, which seems to happen to me all the time: > > - You're in IRC or email, and all the bug reporter has given you is a > random copy and paste from their terminal. They don't care to open > a bug; they don't much care about anything except getting a fix. > > Minidebuginfo would help here. Yeah, in general the goal of MiniDebugInfo is to raise the *minimum* quality of all backtraces. If all the stars align we should be able to have a system that gives perfect backtraces, using server magic in ABRT and other things, but in all the cases where this for some reason doesn't happen we should be able to *always* at least get full function names in the backtrace instead of "???" (unless the stack is totally corrupted of course). -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
