[Rd] Saving Graphics File as .ps or .pdf (PR#10403)
jfox at mcmaster.ca
Wed Nov 7 18:17:11 CET 2007
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org
> [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Martin Maechler
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:09 PM
> To: Jari Oksanen
> Cc: r-devel at r-project.org; Peter Dalgaard
> Subject: Re: [Rd] Saving Graphics File as .ps or .pdf (PR#10403)
> >>>>> "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
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel