Re: [Bioc-devel] BiocInstaller not supporting R 3.4.0 -- yes, it's early, but shouldn't it default to using Bioc-devel instead of Bioc-release in this scenario?

Thanks for the new feature Martin! I also have to thank Jim Hester for adding support for R version 3.3.0 on Travis. I know that we'll use R-3-3-branch for Bioc 3.4, but it's good to mention it on the thread for reference. Best, Leo On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Martin Morgan

Re: [Bioc-devel] BiocInstaller not supporting R 3.4.0 -- yes, it's early, but shouldn't it default to using Bioc-devel instead of Bioc-release in this scenario?

the biocLite.R script has been changed to use bioc-devel when the R version is 'too new'. Worth pointing out perhaps that Bioconductor will not use R-devel again for another six months -- after our next release, both release and devel versions of Bioconductor will use the R-3-3-branch,

[Bioc-devel] package 'splineTCDiffExpr'

Hello, we have a new package on Bioconductor with name ' splineTCDiffExpr'. It is still in the development repository. We would like to have another name for it: 'splineTimeR' T and R in upper case, all other letters in lower case. Is it possible to change the name or to get the name changed?

Re: [Bioc-devel] BiocInstaller not supporting R 3.4.0 -- yes, it's early, but shouldn't it default to using Bioc-devel instead of Bioc-release in this scenario?

Check Jim Hester's thoughts on this issue https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/5809#issuecomment-199858950 One way of solving it is by having BiocInstaller allow using Bioc-devel with R 3.4.0. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Leonardo Collado Torres wrote: > Hi, > >

Re: [Bioc-devel] Issues uploading our updated package (CausalR)

On 03/22/2016 07:53 AM, Glyn Bradley wrote: Hi, We’ve got CausalR back up both in the 3.2 release and devel, but although we committed the same package (with different version number) to both release and devel, the landing pages are showing build:OK in release but build:warnings in devel.

Re: [Bioc-devel] some fixed bugs are not displayed properly in website

On 03/22/2016 08:34 AM, Gmail2 wrote: Dear Bioc-dev guys, I recently fixed some bugs in my package SICtools and commit the changes into Release_3_2. To my surprise, it seems that the source in the website (http://bioconductor.org/packages/3.2/bioc/html/SICtools.html

[Bioc-devel] some fixed bugs are not displayed properly in website

Dear Bioc-dev guys, I recently fixed some bugs in my package SICtools and commit the changes into Release_3_2. To my surprise, it seems that the source in the website (http://bioconductor.org/packages/3.2/bioc/html/SICtools.html )

Re: [Bioc-devel] Issues uploading our updated package (CausalR)

Hi, We’ve got CausalR back up both in the 3.2 release and devel, but although we committed the same package (with different version number) to both release and devel, the landing pages are showing build:OK in release but build:warnings in devel. Does anyone know why this might be, and more

Re: [Bioc-devel] Package Without a Vignette

Hi, Yes, my bad. I'm already on it. Thanks, Stefan On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:14 AM Martin Morgan < martin.mor...@roswellpark.org> wrote: > > > On 03/22/2016 03:00 AM, Dario Strbenac wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The newly added Bioconductor package miRNAmeConverter has no vignette, > although a

[Bioc-devel] Package Without a Vignette

Hello, The newly added Bioconductor package miRNAmeConverter has no vignette, although a vignette is a requirement for Bioconductor packages which are not simply annotation databases. -- Dario Strbenac PhD Student University of Sydney Camperdown NSW 2050