Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On 23 January 2015 at 05:55, Hadley Wickham wrote: | I'd strongly second the notion of using github. The biggest advantage | is that others can easily contribute changes through pull requests | which lifts much of the burden from your shoulders. That's "The Theory". "The Practice" for eight weeks having the High-Performance Computing and Finance Task Views there (in "source" and a rendered markdown, see [1]) is a single pull request fixing a one-char typo. So the jury may still be out on that one. Dirk [1] As already shown in the email thread: https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Willem,
thanks for volunteering!
Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. Tobias Verbeke forwarded
that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be interested in
maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. I wasn't subscribed to R-devel
yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to maintain the Programming
Tools CTV.
As discussed in the other thread: A programming tools task view would be
too broad and Max suggested splitting it up into sharper and more
manageable portions. Maybe you want to pick up one of these sub-topics?
It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it
setup will be appreciated. I myself am very interested in better/easier
ways to develop faster and nicer code.
The process is usually the following:
- Someone proposes to set up a certain task view - often here in the list
or in a direct e-mail to me.
- If the topic is deemed feasible for a task view, then the
maintainer-to-be compiles a .ctv file following the advice in
vignette("ctv", package = "ctv") and first sends it to me.
- If the maintainer-to-be and myself are satisfied with the result so far,
we typically try to get some more feedback from the mailing list and then
release it to CRAN.
As for version control:
The "ctv" package and all task view reside on R-Forge. All maintainers are
invited to join the R-Forge project and thus get access to the SVN
repository so that they can change their .ctv file directly. Most
maintainers do so but a few maintainers have chose to either use no
version control themselves or use some separate system (e.g., Github). In
the latter cases, updates are sent by e-mail to me.
Best,
Z
Kind regards,
Willem
__
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
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
I'd strongly second the notion of using github. The biggest advantage is that others can easily contribute changes through pull requests which lifts much of the burden from your shoulders. Hadley On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Luca Braglia wrote: > Hi Willem > > thanks for volounteering. > > To the best of my knowledge (regarding the machinery side), if you're > planning to use github (and maybe even if you don't) you can "stole" > ideas from > > https://github.com/ropensci/webservices > https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView (minor > modifications from webservices) > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance or > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc > > > HTH, Luca > > 2015-01-23 11:13 GMT+01:00 Willem Ligtenberg > : >> Hi all, >> >> Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. >> Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be >> interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. >> I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to >> maintain the Programming Tools CTV. >> >> It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it >> setup will be appreciated. >> I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and >> nicer code. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Willem >> >> __ >> 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 -- http://had.co.nz/ __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Dear Willem I maintain the MetaAnalysis CTV. I have found it quite practicable to do this without special tools. I use an editor for the XML. I use CRANberries to catch updates and I usually email people to check I have understood a new package. People also kindly email me occasionally with news about major changes. On the other hand since it is the programming tools CTV I imagine you will want to try out the latest all-singing, all-dancing technology. And why not. Michael On 23/01/2015 13:05, Christophe Dutang wrote: Dear Willem, Personally, I use the R-forge project for the distribution CTV : https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/ctv/ It’s an alternative option to github. Regards, Christophe --- Christophe Dutang LMM, UdM, Le Mans, France web: http://dutangc.free.fr Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:49, Luca Braglia a écrit : Hi Willem thanks for volounteering. To the best of my knowledge (regarding the machinery side), if you're planning to use github (and maybe even if you don't) you can "stole" ideas from https://github.com/ropensci/webservices https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView (minor modifications from webservices) https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance or https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc HTH, Luca 2015-01-23 11:13 GMT+01:00 Willem Ligtenberg : Hi all, Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to maintain the Programming Tools CTV. It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it setup will be appreciated. I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and nicer code. Kind regards, Willem __ 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 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8981 - Release Date: 01/23/15 -- Michael http://www.dewey.myzen.co.uk __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Dear Willem, Personally, I use the R-forge project for the distribution CTV : https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/ctv/ It’s an alternative option to github. Regards, Christophe --- Christophe Dutang LMM, UdM, Le Mans, France web: http://dutangc.free.fr Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:49, Luca Braglia a écrit : > Hi Willem > > thanks for volounteering. > > To the best of my knowledge (regarding the machinery side), if you're > planning to use github (and maybe even if you don't) you can "stole" > ideas from > > https://github.com/ropensci/webservices > https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView (minor > modifications from webservices) > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance or > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc > > > HTH, Luca > > 2015-01-23 11:13 GMT+01:00 Willem Ligtenberg > : >> Hi all, >> >> Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. >> Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be >> interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. >> I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to >> maintain the Programming Tools CTV. >> >> It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it >> setup will be appreciated. >> I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and >> nicer code. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Willem >> >> __ >> 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 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
... BTW you should install the ctv package and read the vignette at first :) ... 2015-01-23 12:49 GMT+01:00 Luca Braglia : > Hi Willem > > thanks for volounteering. > > To the best of my knowledge (regarding the machinery side), if you're > planning to use github (and maybe even if you don't) you can "stole" > ideas from > > https://github.com/ropensci/webservices > https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView (minor > modifications from webservices) > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance or > https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc > > > HTH, Luca > > 2015-01-23 11:13 GMT+01:00 Willem Ligtenberg > : >> Hi all, >> >> Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. >> Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be >> interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. >> I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to >> maintain the Programming Tools CTV. >> >> It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it >> setup will be appreciated. >> I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and >> nicer code. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Willem >> >> __ >> 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
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Hi Willem thanks for volounteering. To the best of my knowledge (regarding the machinery side), if you're planning to use github (and maybe even if you don't) you can "stole" ideas from https://github.com/ropensci/webservices https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView (minor modifications from webservices) https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-finance or https://github.com/eddelbuettel/ctv-hpc HTH, Luca 2015-01-23 11:13 GMT+01:00 Willem Ligtenberg : > Hi all, > > Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. > Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be > interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. > I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to > maintain the Programming Tools CTV. > > It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it setup > will be appreciated. > I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and nicer > code. > > Kind regards, > > Willem > > __ > 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
[Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Hi all, Sorry if this doesn't end up in the thread. Tobias Verbeke forwarded that e-mail to me, because he thought I would be interested in maintaining the Programming Tools CTV. I wasn't subscribed to R-devel yet, but I would indeed like to volunteer to maintain the Programming Tools CTV. It will be my first time creating a CTV, so some guidance on getting it setup will be appreciated. I myself am very interested in better/easier ways to develop faster and nicer code. Kind regards, Willem __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Achim Zeileis wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis 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. Yes, I agree. There should (an) additional task view(s) on CRAN related to this. How about a relatively broad definition that is succinct in content with a link to a github repos? I think this doesn't fit well with the existing development model and might require duplicating changes in the of the task view. In order to be easily installable I need the in the task view on CRAN and not just in the linked list on Github. Many of the task views are encyclopedic and still focused. Perhaps my issues with RR are more related to how I currently organize it. I'll try to solve it that way. Therefore, I would suggest splitting up the topic into things that are fairly sharp and clear. (Of course, it is impossible to avoid overlap completely.) For example, one could add "LanguageInterfaces" or something like that. Looking at Luca's page, I think he does a great job of clustering packages. My suggestions for focused topics are: - Package Development* - Foreign Languages Interfaces - Code Analysis and Debugging - Profiling and Benchmarking - Unit Testing Yes, good suggestions. Now we only need willing maintainers :-) * I would define the first one to be more narrow than the original definition. It's probably still the fuzziest one in the list above. I think that most of these would encompass less than 10 packages if we don't include all the Rcpp depends =] :-) And the task views on CRAN can always include to further documentation on Github and elsewhere. Especially when it comes to package development there are also clearly different preferences about what is good style or the right tools (say Github vs. R-Forge, knitr vs. Sweave, etc.) Yes. The comments above would not exclude this approach, which is/was/might be my intention for RR. True. thx, Z __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Achim Zeileis wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis >> 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. > > > Yes, I agree. There should (an) additional task view(s) on CRAN related to > this. > >> How about a relatively broad definition that is succinct in content >> with a link to a github repos? > > > I think this doesn't fit well with the existing development model and might > require duplicating changes in the of the task view. In order > to be easily installable I need the in the task view on CRAN > and not just in the linked list on Github. Many of the task views are encyclopedic and still focused. Perhaps my issues with RR are more related to how I currently organize it. I'll try to solve it that way. > Therefore, I would suggest splitting up the topic into things that are > fairly sharp and clear. (Of course, it is impossible to avoid overlap > completely.) For example, one could add "LanguageInterfaces" or something > like that. Looking at Luca's page, I think he does a great job of clustering packages. My suggestions for focused topics are: - Package Development* - Foreign Languages Interfaces - Code Analysis and Debugging - Profiling and Benchmarking - Unit Testing * I would define the first one to be more narrow than the original definition. I think that most of these would encompass less than 10 packages if we don't include all the Rcpp depends =] > And the task views on CRAN can always include to further > documentation on Github and elsewhere. Especially when it comes to package > development there are also clearly different preferences about what is good > style or the right tools (say Github vs. R-Forge, knitr vs. Sweave, etc.) Yes. The comments above would not exclude this approach, which is/was/might be my intention for RR. Thanks, Max __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Max Kuhn wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis 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. Yes, I agree. There should (an) additional task view(s) on CRAN related to this. How about a relatively broad definition that is succinct in content with a link to a github repos? I think this doesn't fit well with the existing development model and might require duplicating changes in the of the task view. In order to be easily installable I need the in the task view on CRAN and not just in the linked list on Github. Therefore, I would suggest splitting up the topic into things that are fairly sharp and clear. (Of course, it is impossible to avoid overlap completely.) For example, one could add "LanguageInterfaces" or something like that. And the task views on CRAN can always include to further documentation on Github and elsewhere. Especially when it comes to package development there are also clearly different preferences about what is good style or the right tools (say Github vs. R-Forge, knitr vs. Sweave, etc.) Thanks, Max __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Achim Zeileis 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
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
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? Best, Z Thanks, Max __ 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
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Hi, this summer, after few mails on this list, i started something similar (feeling the same need)... here is the repo https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView Currently it's quite freezed since i'm working on other projects in my free software spare time (and likely i won't return to it) but could be a starting point for someone else interested. Best, Luca PS in the case, following some mails with Dirk and Achim, HPC stuff a-la Rcpp and friends should not be copied from Dirk's stuff, better pointing... it was in my mental TODO 2015-01-22 18:23 GMT+01:00 Gregory R. Warnes : > I second the motion for a Programming Tools CRAN Task View. > > I would also think it could contain things like Rcpp, R6, etc. > > -Greg > > >> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:20 AM, 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? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Max >> >> __ >> 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 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:20 AM, 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? Thanks for your work on this. May I suggest a Git/GitHub repository for this? That lowers the barriers for contributions substantially, e.g. either via issues but even better via pull requests (== point'n'click for you). If you need to mirror/push it to an SVN repository, I'm sure that's pretty easy to do (and likely also to automate). /Henrik PS. Sorry, I'm not volunteering; too much on my plate. > > Thanks, > > Max > > __ > 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
Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
I second the motion for a Programming Tools CRAN Task View. I would also think it could contain things like Rcpp, R6, etc. -Greg > On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:20 AM, 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? > > Thanks, > > Max > > __ > 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
[Rd] Programming Tools CTV
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? Thanks, Max __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
