To quote Rob: "Version numbers are cheap"
The way the policy is worded it is clear that you cannot complain if you didn't
increase it as you are taking a risk. Also the the incoming FTP won't let you
upload same version twice so it wasn't really a problem until more recently
when there are multiple different ways to submit. Either way, changing the
policy to MUST is probably the best way to avoid race conditions and certainly
the only good practice.
Cheers,
Simon
> On 25/02/2024, at 5:44 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:19:41 -0600
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 February 2024 at 15:53, Leo Mada wrote:
>> | Dear Dirk & R-Members,
>> |
>> | It seems that the version number is not incremented:
>> | # Archived
>> | arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 11:57 3.9M
>> | # Pending
>> | arrow_14.0.2.1.tar.gz 2024-02-08 18:24 3.9M
>> |
>> | Maybe this is the reason why it got stuck in "pending".
>>
>> No it is not.
>>
>> The hint to increase version numbers on re-submission is a weaker
>> 'should' or 'might', not a strong 'must'.
>>
>> I have uploaded a few packages to CRAN over the last two decades, and
>> like others have made mistakes requiring iterations. I have not once
>> increased a version number.
>
> That's as may be but IMHO (and AFAICS) it never hurts to increment the
> version number, even if you've only corrected a trivial glitch.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rolf
>
> --
> Honorary Research Fellow
> Department of Statistics
> University of Auckland
> Stats. Dep't. (secretaries) phone:
> +64-9-373-7599 ext. 89622
> Home phone: +64-9-480-4619
>
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
