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) ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel