On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis <achim.zeil...@uibk.ac.at> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote: > >> I've had a lot of requests for additions to the reproducible research >> task view that fall into a grey area (to me at least). >> >> For example, roxygen2 is a tool that broadly enable reproducibility >> but I see it more as a tool for better programming. I'm about to check >> in a new version of the task view that includes packrat and >> checkpoint, as they seem closer to reproducible research, but also >> feel like coding tools. >> >> There are a few other packages that many would find useful for better >> coding: devtools, testthat, lintr, codetools, svTools, rbenchmark, >> pkgutils, etc. >> >> This might be some overlap with the HPC task view. I would think that >> rJava, Rcpp and the like are better suited there but this is arguable. >> >> The last time I proposed something like this, Martin deftly convinced >> me to be the maintainer. It is probably better for everyone if we >> avoid that on this occasion. >> >> * Does anyone else see the need for this? >> >> * What other packages fit into this bin? >> >> * Would anyone like to volunteer? > > > Max, thanks for the suggestion. We had a somewhat related proposal on R-help > from Luca Braglia a couple of months ago, suggesting a "Package Development" > task view: > https://mailman.stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2014-July/069454.html > > He put up some ideas on Github: > https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView > > When Luca asked me (ctv maintainer) and Dirk (HPC task view maintainer) for > feedback off-list, I replied that it is important that task views are > focused in order to be useful and maintainable. My feeling was that > "PackageDevelopment" was too broad and also "ProgrammingTools" is still too > board, I think. This could mean a lot of things/tools to a lot of people. > > But maybe it would be to factor out some aspect that is sharp and clear(er)? > Or split it up into bits where there are (more or less) objectively clear > criteria for what goes in and what does not?
It's funny that you said that. As I was updating the RR CTV, it realized what a beast it is right now. I thought about making a github project earlier today that would have more detailed examples and information. I see two problems with that as the *sole* solution. First, it is divorced from CRAN CTV and that is a place that people know and will look. I had no idea of Luca's work for this exact reason. Secondly, might be intimidating for new R users who, I think, are the targeted cohort for the CTVs. How about a relatively broad definition that is succinct in content with a link to a github repos? Thanks, Max ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel