On Apr 16, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Blair Christian <[email protected]> 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 bugs.r-project.org 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. Cheers, Simon > > > > >>>> 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 > [email protected] > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Mac mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
