From p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk  Tue Mar 30 21:26:48 2004
From: p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard)
Date: Tue Mar 30 21:26:39 2004
Subject: [Rd] R-bugs is for BUGS (was Help Documentation (PR#6717))
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.58.0403290638050.66128@homer05.u.washington.edu>
References: <20040329141430.11BD6FB9A@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<Pine.A41.4.58.0403290638050.66128@homer05.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <x28yhiyw3r.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>

Thomas Lumley <tlumley@u.washington.edu> writes:

> Everyone,
> 
> While this has been in some ways a useful discussion, the most important
> part of Brian's initial complaint was that the messages were sent to
> R-bugs.  All this follow-up discussion has *also* been sent to R-bugs,
> often by people who know better.
> 
> If it isn't a bug report, *don't send it to R-bugs.*

And, for crying out loud: WATCH THE BLOODY CC: FIELDS AND THE PR# AND
NEVER, EVER CC: AN ORIGINAL BUG REPORT TO R-DEVEL. This particular
thread ended up split over PR#6711 through PR#6717 for that reason. I
see that some kind soul moved all of them to the trashcan, but when
there is actual content in a thread, this effect gets really annoying.

All bug reports are automagically copied to r-devel with the PR#
attached. If you do a direct CC, the list will see two copies of the
report. But not just that: some people will do a wide reply to the
version without the PR#, and a copy of their response will get sent to
r-bugs, where, since it has no PR#, it will be treated as a new
report, but another copy without PR# is already sent to r-devel, where
people will reply, etc., etc.
 
-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907


[Rd] R-bugs is for BUGS (was Help Documentation (PR#6717))
Peter Dalgaard