[Rd] Saving Graphics File as .ps or .pdf (PR#10403)

Martin Maechler maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Wed Nov 7 18:09:22 CET 2007

>>>>> "JO" == Jari Oksanen <jari.oksanen at oulu.fi>
>>>>>     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

More information about the R-devel mailing list