Re: [Rd] Saving Graphics File as .ps or .pdf (PR#10403)

From: Martin Maechler <>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:09:22 +0100

>>>>> "JO" == Jari Oksanen <> >>>>> 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 mailing list Received on Wed 07 Nov 2007 - 17:13:20 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Wed 07 Nov 2007 - 19:30:29 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.