Re: r-cran-rinside good to go

2015-09-02 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 2 September 2015 at 17:26, Andreas Tille wrote: | Hi Jonathon, | | On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Jonathon Love wrote: | > > | > > I would have loved if the patch would have been discussed - IMHO it is | > > sensible. | > | > oh ok. still figuring out how much autonomy i'm

Re: r-cran-rinside good to go

2015-09-02 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Jonathon, On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Jonathon Love wrote: > > > > I would have loved if the patch would have been discussed - IMHO it is > > sensible. > > oh ok. still figuring out how much autonomy i'm supposed to exhibit. i > do like to lead with a concrete implementation -

Re: r-cran-rinside good to go

2015-09-02 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 2 September 2015 at 15:09, Jonathon Love wrote: | fixed now. a lot of these R packages don't do you any favours coming up | with a < 80 char description. Simply a different (if related in spirit and scope) spec -- R itself has rather stringent checks in 'R CMD check ...' which, not unlike

Re: r-cran-rinside good to go

2015-09-01 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Dirk, On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:07:04PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 31 August 2015 at 18:40, Jonathon Love wrote: > | hi andreas. > | > | r-cran-rinside should be good to go. > > Is there a reason I shouldn't maintain, being upstream and all that? At first sight I see two