[Rd] Brainstorm: Alpha and Beta testing of R versions

Paul Roebuck roebuck at mdanderson.org
Mon Nov 7 09:48:31 CET 2005

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:

> Andrew Robinson wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> >
> >>[Mainly for R-foundation members; but kept in public for general
> >> brainstorming...]
> >>
> >
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >2) Try to use the structure of the reporting page to prompt good
> >   reporting.  On the report page, summarize the key points of
> >   identifying and reporting a bug in a checklist format.  Maybe even
> >   insist that the boxes be checked before allowing submission.
> >   Include seperate text boxes for description and sample code, to
> >   suggest that sample code is valued.
> >
> >
> ...and a optional field to select one or several packages related to the
> bug.  This is a good place to clarify that problems related to
> third-party packages should not be reporter "here".  Example HTML code:
> Package(s) related to the bug, if applicable:<br>
> (Bugs related to packages not listed below should <em>not</em> be
> reported here. Instead, contact the package manager.)

Perhaps there should be no attempt to swim upstream here.
Why not just have the bug-reporter forward the report to
the maintainer? From user perspective, they would have a
single point to report bugs.

I'm not advocating increasing manual processing of bug
reports by R Core, rather that an alternative to the
problem [of package bug reports] may exist.

SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)

More information about the R-devel mailing list