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

Simon Urbanek simon.urbanek at r-project.org
Wed Apr 16 16:33:45 CEST 2014

On Apr 16, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Blair Christian <blair.christian at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

If you found bug, report it on
It's really that simple, no need to link anything special. If the bug is already reported, you'll also find it there - along with the info whether it has been fixed or not. There is normally no "in progress" sate - it's report -> confirm -> fix or reject and the last two are typically one step - pretty simple no magic.


>>>> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Mac mailing list
> R-SIG-Mac at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac

More information about the R-SIG-Mac mailing list