[PATCH] drkonqi: s/backtrace/backtrace full/g

[Russell Miller]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 03:46 am, Lubos Lunak wrote:

>  I like it. But the backtrace itself can become not very visible if there
> are many variables. I think it would be better to do "bt" followed by
> "backtrace full".

GDB backtraces can bog down a slow machine.  Does "backtrace full" make the 
resource demands higher?  If so, perhaps we should allow the user to "opt 
out" in a userfriendly manner:

"A full backtrace may allow the maintainer to track down and find the bug more 
quickly, but at the expense of requiring more CPU power and memory to 
generate it.  Would you like a full backtrace?"

- --Russell

- -- 
03:58:37 up 5 days, 8:50, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.18, 0.17

Russell Miller - rmiller at duskglow.com - Somewhere near Sioux City, IA.
Youth cannot know age, but age is guilty if it forgets youth
    - Professor Dumbledore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAFjawURTA4VCI9OARAjKIAJ9nmZ1txQ3h0DsuckCsqJxE/OwTIwCfZR7L
C/s0qdV0n+MpRpcgDrm3koA=
=nqkZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----