Re: [Rd] "bug report" field in DESCRIPTION file?

From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch_at_stats.uwo.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:00:03 -0500

On 26/11/2009 9:20 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> >>>>> "DM" == Duncan Murdoch <murdoch@stats.uwo.ca>
> >>>>> on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:39:27 -0500 writes:
>
> DM> On 26/11/2009 7:09 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> >> A lot of R packages are now effectively maintained by several people
> >> and so use sites like R-forge or google code for development. This
> >> means the best way to report bugs or problems with these packages is
> >> via the development site's bug tracking rather than emailing the
> >> maintainer. Could we agree on a field in DESCRIPTION explicitly for
> >> bug reports?
> >>
> >> The DESCRIPTION file has an optional URL field which generally sends
> >> the user to the 'home page' of the package. Whether or not there is a
> >> bug tracker somewhere there isn't made explicit, so I don't think
> >> overloading URL for a bug report address is a good idea. The Hmisc
> >> package mentions its bug tracker in the Description field and also has
> >> it in the URL field with three other URLs. This tells me a bug report
> >> field might be a better idea.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer an optional field called 'BugReports:', which would be a
> >> URL, and this could either be the http: address of a web site bug
> >> tracker or a mailto: URL (of a real live human or a mail-based
> >> tracker).
> >>
> >> If there's agreement on this then a further step may be to write a
> >> 'bugreport(package)' function that would first look for a BugReport
> >> field, then the URL or maintainer fields to give the poor confused
> >> user some advice on what to do. Then when someone emails R-dev saying
> >> they think there's a bug in package foo, we can say "Have you read the
> >> output of 'bugreport("foo")'?" which might be more helpful than saying
> >> 'bugs with 'foo' should be reported to the maintainer'.
> >>
>
> DM> This sounds like a good idea, though I would add a "package" parameter
> DM> to the bug.report() function, rather than creating a new function.
>
> I agree (good idea; use bug.report() with arguments).
>
> DM> Does the logic below sound right for bug.report() with the package
> DM> specified?
>
> DM> If there's a BugReports field, bug.report() calls browseURL() on that page.
>
> I'm not sure if that's easy: One main reason for bug.report() is
> to auto-collect the necessary info and put it into the body of
> an e-mail message. So, I think the above only "works" when the
> BugReports fields is a 'mailto:' URL, but not, e.g., when it
> points to an R-forge bug tracking web page form.
>

The idea was that we would not use the auto-collection at all if there was a BugReports field, because the package author(s) had indicated by it that they didn't want emailed bug reports.

Duncan Murdoch
> DM> If not, it does more or less what it does now, but
> DM> - it defaults "address" to the package maintainer.
> DM> - it adds a line in the intro to the message pointing to the URL field
> DM> if there was one.
>
> that sounds good.
> Martin
>
>
> DM> Duncan Murdoch
>
>
> >> Just an idea for a rainy morning...
> >>
> >> Barry
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >>
>
> DM> ______________________________________________
> DM> R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
> DM> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Thu 26 Nov 2009 - 15:03:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 26 Nov 2009 - 20:30:48 GMT