Robby Findler wrote at 09/27/2011 11:56 PM:
Status quo sounds best.
Unless you think I should remove the names of the collections.
If the collections are unlikely to be useful for debugging bug reports
(especially in light of people getting most stuff through PLaneT
nowadays), then I think removing them would be a good idea.
I probably didn't raise the issue years ago because the collections info
seemed plausibly useful, and a reasonable tradeoff. Today, I wouldn't
have raised the issue, unless the status quo was already changing (like
it would be if prefs or PLaneT info were added).
If the collections info *is* likely to be useful for debugging bug
reports, then I think any *question* of whether to change the status quo
in this regard is a low priority. Low priority, even though there is
the potential for a bug submission to spill hints about some company's
technology, product direction, or partnerships. Liability-wise,
DrRacket is still meeting prevailing industry standards.
I have informed my consulting clients who use "PLTCOLLECTS" to be
careful of this small issue with DrRacket's bug-reporting interface.
(If they ever use it, rather than continue to go to me for personalized
help with their exact setup.)
BTW, I appreciate people asking for input here on information privacy.
Even when discussion turns out to seem disproportionate to eventual
result in the immediate case, I think there is a side benefit to
occasional awareness-raising of considerations and approaches. I think
it's good that we're being more conscientious than industry in general
currently is on this. I'll try not to beat dead horses too much.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
