Consider the following code,
b = data.frame(energy = rep(c(1,2),5),
R = rep(c(1-1e-10, 1), each=5),
N = c(55, 55, 65, 65, 75, 75, 85, 85, 95, 95))
geom_line(aes(energy, N, z=R), binwidth=1,
I suggest that there shouldn't be any level line in this plot because the z data is practically constant across the panel, and showing a level line suggests that there is some variation commensurate with the chosen binwidth. For more context, see the SO question:
This sounds like a great feature/horrible bug, but unfortunately we don't currently have the development bandwidth to support it/fix it. If you'd like to submit a pull request that implements this feature/fixes this bug, please follow the instructions in the development vignette.
i don't understand the concept of closing issues for the sake of closing them. That means they will be lost forever, because no-one will know from the list which are were really addressed and which weren't. I've been receiving quite a few similar emails today, there's no way I could possibly find the skills and energy to submit a pull request for each of the bugs / feature requests I've reported in the past. I wish I hadn't wasted my time submitting them.
Unfortunately I don't see any better way of dealing with this problem. We've effectively had to declare issue bankruptcy - there were so many open issues that there was no way we could ever tackle them all. This way we can start with a clean slate going forward, and actually fix some bugs, rather than being parallelised by the sheer quantity of the problem. I realise it's frustrating, but I think it's better to be honest about the chances of these bugs getting fixed (effectively 0) rather than giving you false hope.
And reporting issues was not a waste time - they're not gone forever, as they're still available via search (and google).