I think its somewhat inspiring to be able to get R CMD check to the point that there are no warnings so having a situation where a warning is ok would interfere with that.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM, hadley wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I recently thought about this. I see several issues. > > > > * How can we determine if it is "old"? Relative to the time when the > > package was uploaded to a repository? > > > > * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of > > reasons ... > > > > * What we currently say in R-exts is > > > > The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current > > version of the package. It is strongly recommended to use the > > yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard. > > > > Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to > > sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target. > > > > The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date > > field if there was none. > > That sounds like a good solution to me. Otherwise, maybe just a > message from R CMD check? i.e. just like failing the codetools > checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should be doing it > consciously, not by mistake. > > > Hadley > > > -- > http://had.co.nz/ > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel