>>>>> "JO" == Jari Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> 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@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
