Dear Martin, Jari, et al., Another relevant point (which I haven't seen in this discussion -- perhaps I missed it) is that one can read the CHANGES and NEWS files on CRAN without downloading or installing R-patched.
Regards, John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Maechler > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:09 PM > To: Jari Oksanen > Cc: r-devel@r-project.org; Peter Dalgaard > Subject: Re: [Rd] Saving Graphics File as .ps or .pdf (PR#10403) > > >>>>> "JO" == Jari Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:21:10 +0200 writes: > > JO> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:51 +0100, Simone Giannerini wrote: > >> [snip] (this is from pd = Peter Dalgaard) > >> > Maybe, but given the way things have been working > lately, it might be > >> > better to emphasize > >> > > >> > (a) check the mailinglists > >> > (b) try R-patched > >> > (c) if in doubt, ask, rather than report as bug > >> > > >> > (Ideally, people would try the prerelease versions > and problems like > >> > this would be caught before the actual release, but > it seems that they > >> > prefer treating x.y.0 as a beta release...) > >> > > >> > >> I am sorry but I do not agree with point (b) for the > very simple fact > >> that the average Windows user do not know how to > compile the source > >> code and might not even want to learn how to do it. > The point is that > >> since (if I am correct) the great majority of R users > go Windows you > >> would miss an important part of potential bug reports > by requiring > >> point (b) whereas (a) and (c) would suffice IMHO. > >> Maybe if there were Win binaries of the prerelease > version available > >> some time before the release you would get much more > feedback but I am > >> just guessing. > > JO> First I must say that patched Windows binaries are > available from CRAN > [............] > > JO> Then I must say that I do not like this policy > either. I think that is > JO> fair to file a bug report against the latest release > version in good > JO> faith without being chastised and condemned. > > I agree in principle. > If you do that without any of [abc] above, you do produce a > bit of work to at least one R-core member who has to deal > with the bug report (in the jitterbug archive) in addition to > the usual time consumption (of someone answering) which is > unavoidable and hence ok. > > I think we as R developers should more graciously accept such > false positives in order to get more true positives... > > > JO> I know (like pd says above) that some people really do > JO> treat x.y.0 as beta releases: a friend of mine over here > JO> even refuses to install R x.x.0 versions just for this > JO> reason (in fact, he's pd's mate, too, but perhaps pd can > JO> talk him over to try x.x.0 versions). Filing a bug > JO> report against latest x.x.1 shouldn't be too bad either. > > well, given past experience, I think people *should* adopt > c) in such and more cases, i.e. rather "ask" than "report a > bug", also in light of what you say below, but when people > don't, they still should be handled politely .. > > JO> I guess the problem here is that R bug reports are > linked to the Rd > JO> mailing list, and reports on "alredy fixed" bugs > really are irritating. > JO> In more loosely connected bug reporting systems you > simply could mark a > JO> bug as a duplicate of #xxxx and mark it as resolved > without generating > JO> awfully lot of mail. Then it would be humanly > possible to adopt a more > JO> neutral way of answering to people who reported bugs > in latest releases. > JO> Probably that won't happen in the current environment. > > JO> Cheers, Jari Oksanen > > Martin Maechler > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
