Right now, there are two big text fields: "Description", and "Steps to
Reproduce".
How about changing it to be 2-3 big text fields, but one of them
defaults to having all this synthesized info in it in plain-text form,
and then the user is free to edit it, or even expected to?
This removes more GUI than it adds.
Perhaps 3 fields, with the new one being "Additional Information", and
something like the format below.
If someone wants to do this, I will write the procedure to sort out the
preferences and generate this text.
INTERACTION HISTORY:
(display "Hello, world!")
(+ 1 2 3)
POSSIBLY MORE-SENSITIVE PREFERENCES:
...
COLLECTIONS:
...
LINKS:
...
OTHER PREFERENCES:
...
HUMAN LANGUAGE: english
VERSION: 5.1.3.10--2011-09-24(09b0a46/a)
ENVIRONMENT: unix "Linux matthias 2.999-686 #1 SMP Fri Sep 2
20:66:05 UTC 2025 i686 GNU/Linux" (i386-linux/3m) (get-display-depth) = 32
MEMORY USE: 94206368
Neil Van Dyke wrote at 09/27/2011 11:09 PM:
The prefs seem potentially more sensitive than the info traditionally
hidden behind "Show Synthesized Info".
I'd like to see the "Show Synthesized Info" button go away, if you're
going to include sensitive prefs in the info. Either the information
should be exposed while user is writing bug description, or there
should be a confirmation step after submitting, that pops up a window
that presents this info that will be added to the bug report and gives
them a chance to edit or opt-out of it. An advantage of exposing
during writing bug description is that the user then knows what info
is provided automatically, so they don't waste time on it.
Implementing the confirmation dialog seems easiest right now, because
you can mostly just take the code for "Show Synthesized Info", and you
don't have a UI design&implementation problem for how to expose the
info while writing description.
I'm not only being a privacy hippie here. I know of Racket projects
in which the collects info alone (which Dr* has long included in bug
reports) could threaten business opportunities of the owner of the
code, would raise concerns about security that people would then be
obligated to examine, and could also constitute the bug submitter
violating an NDA or other restrictions on how they handle certain info.
Robby Findler wrote at 09/27/2011 10:37 PM:
Would you think it unwise if it was another field behind the
"synthesized info" button? (Perhaps with some other name, but in
roughly the same manner.)
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
