Re: [Rd] Brainstorm: Alpha and Beta testing of R versions

From: Paul Roebuck <roebuck_at_mdanderson.org>
Date: Mon 07 Nov 2005 - 08:48:31 GMT

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 Received on Mon Nov 07 19:53:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Nov 2005 - 11:21:03 GMT