[R-SIG-Mac] R-SIG-Mac Digest, Vol 134, Issue 15

[Blair Christian]

Hi All,

We use "R CMD Sweave" in our reporting workflow and we also call
"sweave()" interactively or via ESS (depending on who you talk to).  I
didn't notice the bug until we changed a dev machine's ubuntu R
repository from the standard ubuntu repository which provides R (3.0.1
a couple weeks ago?) to the cran repository mirror which upgraded us
to the 3.1 beta.
http://cran.us.r-project.org/bin/linux/ubuntu/

My vote is to keep the R CMD Sweave functionality.

What is considered the appropriate pre-release version to test?
(I think part of this question is answered in section 1.2 of R-admin
documentation, http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-admin.pdf
)  [Actually it is r-devel]

"The alpha, beta and RC versions of an upcoming x.y.0 release are available from
‘https://svn.r-project.org/R/branches/R-x-y-branch/’ in the four-week
period prior to
the release"
It looks like proposed release dates are on:
http://developer.r-project.org/

However, if we find issues, what is the appropriate way to browse
current dev issues to see if something is reported already?  (A
friendly link to the friendly documentation would be helpful if it's
out there).  One reason I didn't report the issue when I found it was
that it was not 100% clear to me where the appropriate place to report
it was (another was that I didn't have time to create a small, clean
reproducible version of the bug).  I have worked with systems like
JIRA in the past, and the ability to have bug reports with links to
the patched version correcting the bug was really nice.  What is the R
equivalent here to check and see if a bug has been reported, in
progress, or fixed (eg location which shows the R-patched version to
upgrade to)?

The best I can find there is to either look at the RSS feed or look at
the svn log for the last k days, eg
http://developer.r-project.org/RSSfeeds.html
svn log -v -r HEAD:\{`date +%Y-%m-%d -d'k days ago'`\}
https://svn.r-project.org/R
depending on the granularity you want?

Is that about right, or am I totally missing some key pieces of information?

Best,
Blair





>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your confirmation on this.
>>>
>>> I normally do not use R CMD Sweave, as I too run under ESS in normal day to day operations. This finding was a quirk of having a particular Rnw document that I occasionally run using R CMD Sweave and I had done so over the weekend, realizing this behavior.
>>
>> This sounds like an argument for dropping R CMD Sweave, rather than fixing it.  The bug was introduced in July, 2013, and nobody noticed it because so few people use that feature, and apparently nobody who does use it bothers to test pre-release versions.
>>
>
> I'd say that that cat is out of the bag. There are probably umpteen documents around suggesting "R CMD Sweave". As people use Sweave only sporadically, it could take years before the old usage got stamped out. And anyways, the command format is the obvious way to generate documents in scripts and makefiles, isn't it?
>