On 30/04/2022 9:53 a.m., Patrick Schratz wrote:
If that is the case, why not contribute to the documentation? That
is the whole point of an open source project after all.
Because often it is not easily accessible, e.g. living in an ancient SVN
repo or lacking (an easy) and clear contribution guide.
There's a mirror of that repo at https://github.com/wch/r-source . It
is of course unofficial and not maintained by R Core so I could
understand you might worry about using it, but as far as I know it is
well maintained. The only difference that I ever heard about in the
past was that the official svn repo had an empty directory somewhere or
other, and git at the time didn't support empty directories. I don't
know if either of those is still true.
WRT to the Mac dev instructions, I can see that the source lives in
https://github.com/R-macos/R-mac-dev
<https://github.com/R-macos/R-mac-dev> which is definitely a good start.
Yet I think it needs way more cross-linking between the repos, more
“official” pointers and “how-tos” to really also encourage people to
contribute.
The README could give more detailed contribution instructions, such as
whom to tag for a PR, what should go there and what not, possibly
stating that it’s the official documentation and define it from other
“random” orgs on developer portals - all of these could e.g. go into a
|CONTRIBUTING.md| which is a widely known source for such information.
Just some personal thoughts though which could potentially considered to
improve things.
To be clear, I acknowledge your effort in opening things up to platforms
like GH - which not all parts of R/CRAN are doing at the moment AFAIK.
And yes, when complaining about things not being optimal, one should
also put in effort to make things better.
So I’ll see if I can put some time in to improve things and see how the
experience is.
If you're happier working in git than in svn, what you could do is fork
the mirror repo to your own git repo, and make your proposed changes
there. If they are good changes it won't be hard for someone (maybe
even you) to convert into the appropriate format to merge into svn.
The way R development changes is when a change makes things easier for
the devs. I suspect whether it's easier for you is only important to
them if you've got a history of making helpful contributions: they like
help, they don't like arguments about how to do things. (I'm saying
this as a former member of R Core.)
Duncan Murdoch
The problem is that generally they cannot. You are looking something
up, because you don't know about it so you can't judge whether it is
a good answer (SO is good example proving why crowd-souring the
definition of truth doesn't generally work). At best you may know
the person and thus judge by that, but even then you may not know if
the information is still accurate.
I see your point here and generally agree that it’s hard making such
judgements in this position.
Yet I disagree on referring to Stackoverflow as a “crowd-souring the
definition of truth doesn't generally work”. Without SO, we would be
nowhere where we are today and I’d argue it has done a lot more positive
things than negative ones to every single person who ever accessed it. >
Cheers
Patrick
On 25 Apr 2022, at 1:04, Simon Urbanek wrote:
On Apr 23, 2022, at 7:44 PM, Patrick Schratz
<patrick.schr...@gmail.com> wrote:
FWIW blog posts which explain such things usually have a (good)
reason - they aim to help people getting started when the
official documentation is either unclear, hard to find or
incomplete.
If that is the case, why not contribute to the documentation? That
is the whole point of an open source project after all.
The problem with random blogs is that many of them are written by
people trying to find an answer without much knowledge on the
subject and often post very bad advice that does not necesarily
address the actual issue. There are rare exceptions of knowledgeable
people posting explanatory blogs, but if you search for an answer
you have no way of knowing whether it is of the good kind. In
addition, blogs tend to get out of date quickly, so what used to be
a good advice may not be anymore (prime example was the R 4.0.0
release which made a lot of the "hacks" obsolete and the well-meant
advice out there has only led to more problems).
It’s on the readers themselves to decide whether such blog posts
are trustworthy or useful.
The problem is that generally they cannot. You are looking something
up, because you don't know about it so you can't judge whether it is
a good answer (SO is good example proving why crowd-souring the
definition of truth doesn't generally work). At best you may know
the person and thus judge by that, but even then you may not know if
the information is still accurate.
I have personally profited so often from blog posts of others
already and therefore find the general advice to not consult
such resources quite shortsighted.
Of course the official documentation should always be the first
point to have a look at - and in this case the required
information would have been there.
Apologies for going partly off-topic but I think this point is
important.
I agree. That's why I think it would be great if those that have the
knowledge would help the community to improve the documentation. Of
all the contributions to R it is the easiest.
That said, I also agree that complementary information is very
useful, in particular if it explains the "why" as well - which may
be too far out of scope of the canonical documentation. In that case
it is easier to spot mismatches, e.g., if it becomes out of date. It
is not without precedent to reference such external documentation if
it is maintained.
Anyway, I'd like to encourage everyone to contribute - it may be
pointing out issues in the documentation or by sending PRs with
proposed updates or posting here. Some did in the past (like you,
Jan or Bob, thanks!), but the more contribute the better for the
community. Often this may also uncover genuine issues that should be
addressed rather than worked around (like the lack of the symlink in
the gfortran-12 tar-ball discovered just this morning...).
Cheers,
Simon
Cheers
Patrick
On 23 Apr 2022, at 2:13, Simon Urbanek wrote:
For posterity - please always consult
https://mac.r-project.org/tools/
<https://mac.r-project.org/tools/> (linked from CRAN)
The old locations like libs* are no longer updated and have
been deprecated in favor of /tools and /bin which are
maintained for all builds. Similarly, I would strongly
discourage following any advice from blogs as they tend to
be outdated, wrong or both.
Cheers
Simon
_______________________________________________
R-SIG-Mac mailing list
R-SIG-Mac@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
_______________________________________________
R-SIG-Mac mailing list
R-SIG-Mac@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
