> On 01 May 2015, at 12:45, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>
> One question, is someone working this kind of metadata management? Because
> 1) instead of keeping it in the class, we can keep it in objects.
> 2) It can be serialized into STON for git versioning and probably it can be
> stored in some way
One question, is someone working this kind of metadata management? Because
1) instead of keeping it in the class, we can keep it in objects.
2) It can be serialized into STON for git versioning and probably it can be
stored in some way in Monticello
Uko
> On 01 May 2015, at 12:07, Esteban Lorenz
> On 01 May 2015, at 03:27, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>
> EstebanLM wrote
>> now we also have the concept of “Package Manifest” where you can put
>> comments and other stuff.
>
> Why does RPackage>>#packageManifest (which should just be named #manifest)
> return an instance of the manifest class,
EstebanLM wrote
> now we also have the concept of “Package Manifest” where you can put
> comments and other stuff.
Why does RPackage>>#packageManifest (which should just be named #manifest)
return an instance of the manifest class, but all metadata is on the class
side?
-
Cheers,
Sean
--
Vi
Thanks :)
I'm gonna investigate the Package Manifest
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano
wrote:
> not yet.
> we have real packages support since not much time.
> now we also have the concept of “Package Manifest” where you can put
> comments and other stuff.
>
> … but the tools a
not yet.
we have real packages support since not much time.
now we also have the concept of “Package Manifest” where you can put comments
and other stuff.
… but the tools are not yet ready :(
Esteban
> On 30 Apr 2015, at 14:52, Sergio Fedi wrote:
>
> Can Packages have comments or something
Can Packages have comments or something explaining its purpose or use?
