On 31/01/2021 3:20 p.m., Joshua Ulrich wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 2:17 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Thanks to everyone who commented. A few replies inline:
On 31/01/2021 1:21 p.m., Joshua Ulrich wrote:
> I've moved history and issues from R-Forge to GitHub for half a dozen
> R
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 2:17 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone who commented. A few replies inline:
>
> On 31/01/2021 1:21 p.m., Joshua Ulrich wrote:
> > I've moved history and issues from R-Forge to GitHub for half a dozen
> > R packages. I might be able to do this rgl. At
Thanks to everyone who commented. A few replies inline:
On 31/01/2021 1:23 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I think it should be fine to have your package in a subdirectory:
this works as expected.
remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rgl/pkg/rgl")
The only disadvantages to this structure are
Technically, git does not record file history... it records commit history, and
reconstructs file history as needed. The contents of a file identify it
uniquely among all commits ever made regardless of which directory it was ever
in. IMO this is the main reason why git is superior and I put up
I think it should be fine to have your package in a subdirectory:
this works as expected.
remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rgl/pkg/rgl")
The only disadvantages to this structure are (1) it's a little bit
surprising to users (who might try install_github("r-forge/rgl" and
wonder why it
I think it should be fine to have your package in a subdirectory:
this works as expected.
remotes::install_github("dmurdoch/rgl/pkg/rgl")
The only disadvantages to this structure are (1) it's a little bit
surprising to users (who might try install_github("r-forge/rgl" and
wonder why it
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:10 PM Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>
> rgl has been on R-forge for a long time, but I am now planning on
> migrating it to Github. I really dislike git, but Github offers enough
> benefits, and nowadays I'm familiar enough with them, that I think I'd
> be better off there.
>
rgl has been on R-forge for a long time, but I am now planning on
migrating it to Github. I really dislike git, but Github offers enough
benefits, and nowadays I'm familiar enough with them, that I think I'd
be better off there.
The easiest way to do this would be to do almost nothing: just
On 31/01/2021 12:35 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 31/01/2021 10:57 a.m., Gábor Csárdi wrote:
Do you actually experience any problems, if you don't treat this case specially?
Yes, what was happening was that remotes::install_deps skipped
installing rgl from CRAN because the local copy had a
On 31/01/2021 10:57 a.m., Gábor Csárdi wrote:
Do you actually experience any problems, if you don't treat this case specially?
Yes, what was happening was that remotes::install_deps skipped
installing rgl from CRAN because the local copy had a later version
number. Sorry, I deleted most of
Hi all,
Some time ago, there was a question[1] about "how long is the average
waiting time when submitting a new package ("newbies") until you get a
manual reply or it's on CRAN, submitting an update with all OK before
it hits CRAN".
I have analyzed the data provided by cransays[2] (Many
Do you actually experience any problems, if you don't treat this case specially?
AFAIR, in most cases this is not a problem in practice. remotes might
install the CRAN version of rgl as the dependency of alphashape3d, but
`R CMD check` will install and use the local copy of the rgl package
for
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:32 AM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> I am trying out a modified version of the tidyverse actions, and it does
> seem to be going well. Just one question:
>
> rgl has a soft dependency on alphashape3d, and alphashape3d has a hard
> dependency on rgl. This means that I need
I am trying out a modified version of the tidyverse actions, and it does
seem to be going well. Just one question:
rgl has a soft dependency on alphashape3d, and alphashape3d has a hard
dependency on rgl. This means that I need to install in the order
rgl hard dependencies
rgl
rgl
14 matches
Mail list logo
