o such filtering, but a developer might.)
> Bill Dunlap
> Spotfire, TIBCO Software
> wdunlap tibco.com
>> -Original Message-
>> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf
>> Of mark.braving...@csi
> -Original Message-
> From: Spencer Graves [mailto:spencer.gra...@prodsyse.com]
> Sent: March-31-12 1:56 PM
> To: Ted Byers
> Cc: 'Paul Gilbert'; mark.braving...@csiro.au; r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
>
> Hi, Ted:
>
,
Spencer
On 3/31/2012 8:29 AM, Ted Byers wrote:
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Paul Gilbert
Sent: March-31-12 9:57 AM
To: mark.braving...@csiro.au
Cc: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
Gre
> -Original Message-
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
> On Behalf Of Paul Gilbert
> Sent: March-31-12 9:57 AM
> To: mark.braving...@csiro.au
> Cc: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
>
Greetings
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Paul Gilbert wrote:
> Mark
>
> I would like to clarify two specific points.
>
> On 12-03-31 04:41 AM, mark.braving...@csiro.au wrote:
>> ...
>
>> Someone has subsequently decided that code should look a certain way, and
>> has added a check that
>> isn't in the lan
Mark
I would like to clarify two specific points.
On 12-03-31 04:41 AM, mark.braving...@csiro.au wrote:
> ...
Someone has subsequently decided that code should look a certain way, and has
added a check that
isn't in the language itself-- but they haven't thought of everything, and of
course t
rk
Mark Bravington
CSIRO CMIS
Marine Lab
Hobart
Australia
From: Joshua Wiley [jwiley.ps...@gmail.com]
Sent: 31 March 2012 06:03
To: Kevin Wright
Cc: Bravington, Mark (CMIS, Hobart); r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012
onal
>> requirement runs the risk of generating false-negatives and incurring many
>> extra person-hours to "fix" non-problems. Plus someone needs to document
>> and explain the check (adding to the rule mountain), plus there is the time
>> spent in discussions like
ding to the rule mountain), plus there is the time
> spent in discussions like this..!
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Bravington
> CSIRO CMIS
> Marine Lab
> Hobart
> Australia
>
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
ck (adding to the rule mountain), plus there is
> the time
> spent in discussions like this..!
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Bravington
> CSIRO CMIS
> Marine Lab
> Hobart
> Australia
>
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [r-deve
Paul,
> One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
> that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
[snip]
>
> I am curious how other developers approach this.
Regardless of --as-cran I find it very useful to use the date as minor
part of the v
csiro.au> writes:
> There must be over 2000 people who have written CRAN packages by now; every
extra
> check and non-back-compatible additional requirement runs the risk of
generating false-negatives and
> incurring many extra person-hours to "fix" non-problems. Plus someone needs
to document
d approach, CRAN is a vast
improvement.
Paul
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Bravington
> CSIRO CMIS
> Marine Lab
> Hobart
> Australia
>
> From:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Hadley Wickham [had.
improvement.
Paul
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Bravington
> CSIRO CMIS
> Marine Lab
> Hobart
> Australia
>
> From:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Hadley Wickham [had...@rice.edu]
> Sent
rt
Australia
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf
Of Hadley Wickham [had...@rice.edu]
Sent: 30 March 2012 07:42
To: William Dunlap
Cc: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch; Spencer Graves
Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
> Most o
> Most of that stuff is already in codetools, at least when it is checking
> functions
> with checkUsage(). E.g., arguments of ~ are not checked. The expr argument
> to with() will not be checked if you add skipWith=FALSE to the call to
> checkUsage.
>
> > library(codetools)
>
> > checkUsag
ot;local" "poisson" "quasi"
[28] "quasibinomial" "quasipoisson" "quote"
[31] "Quote" "require" "substitute"
[34] "with"
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire,
...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
William Dunlap tibco.com> writes:
-Original Message-
The survival package has a similar special case: the routines for
expected population survival are set up to accept multiple types of date
format so have lines like
if (class(x) == &#x
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
> -Original Message-
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Matthew Dowle
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:41 AM
> To: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
> S
William Dunlap tibco.com> writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > The survival package has a similar special case: the routines for
> > expected population survival are set up to accept multiple types of date
> > format so have lines like
> > if (class(x) == 'chron') { y <- as.numeric(x -
> -Original Message-
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Terry Therneau
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:02 AM
> To: r-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
>
> On 03/29/2012
On 3/29/2012 7:07 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 29 March 2012 at 07:58, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
| On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 16:52 +1300, Thomas Lumley wrote:
|> The 'No visible binding for global variable" is a good example. This
|> found some bugs in my 'survey' package, which I removed. There
On 29 March 2012 at 07:58, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
| On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 16:52 +1300, Thomas Lumley wrote:
| > The 'No visible binding for global variable" is a good example. This
| > found some bugs in my 'survey' package, which I removed. There is
| > still one note of this type, which arise
On 03/29/2012 05:00 AM, r-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
The 'No visible binding for global variable" is a good example. This
found some bugs in my 'survey' package, which I removed. There is
still one note of this type, which arises when I have to handle two
different versions of the hexbin
On Mar 29, 2012, at 14:58 , Brian G. Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 16:52 +1300, Thomas Lumley wrote:
>> The 'No visible binding for global variable" is a good example. This
>> found some bugs in my 'survey' package, which I removed. There is
>> still one note of this type, which arises
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 16:52 +1300, Thomas Lumley wrote:
> The 'No visible binding for global variable" is a good example. This
> found some bugs in my 'survey' package, which I removed. There is
> still one note of this type, which arises when I have to handle two
> different versions of the hexbi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Thomas Lumley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Gabor Grothendieck
> wrote:
>> 2012/3/28 Uwe Ligges :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
Still fuzzy on the
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
> 2012/3/28 Uwe Ligges :
>>
>>
>> On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
>>>
>>> Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example
>>> or two
On 28.03.2012 16:30, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
2012/3/28 Uwe Ligges:
On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example
or two for the list?
We have to look a
2012/3/28 Uwe Ligges :
>
>
> On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
>>
>> Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example
>> or two for the list?
>
>
>
> We have to look at those notes again and again i
On 27.03.2012 20:36, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
2012/3/27 Uwe Ligges:
On 27.03.2012 19:10, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
Is there a distinction as to NOTE vs. WARNING that is documented? I've
always assumed (wrongly?) that NOTES weren't an issue with publishing on
CRAN, but that they may change to W
On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example
or two for the list?
We have to look at those notes again and again in order to find if
something important is n
On 28.03.2012 00:07, Hadley Wickham wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
wrote:
CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
and we would like to draw this to the attention of package maintainers. In
particular, plea
> From: x...@yihui.name
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:40:04 -0500
> To: r-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies
>
> I have been wondering if it is possible to automate the checking
> process to reduce human efforts, e.g. automatically check the packages
> su
Lots of very sensible policies here. I have one request as someone
who has in several cases had to involve company lawyers over
intellectual property issues with packages on CRAN -- the first bullet
point on ownership of copyright and intellectual property rights could
be strengthened further.
To
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
wrote:
> CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
> http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
> and we would like to draw this to the attention of package maintainers. In
> particular, please
Thanks for the pointer - I did not kn
> I have been wondering if it is possible to automate the checking
> process to reduce human efforts, e.g. automatically check the packages
> submitted to FTP, and send the package maintainer an email in case of
> warnings or errors (otherwise just move it to CRAN); package
> maintainers can appeal
I have been wondering if it is possible to automate the checking
process to reduce human efforts, e.g. automatically check the packages
submitted to FTP, and send the package maintainer an email in case of
warnings or errors (otherwise just move it to CRAN); package
maintainers can appeal for a man
An associated problem, for the wish list, is that it would be nice for
package developers to have a way to automatically distinguish between
NOTEs that can usually be ignored (e.g. a package suggests a package
that is not available for cross reference checks - I have several case
where the sugg
2012/3/27 Uwe Ligges :
>
>
> On 27.03.2012 19:10, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Is there a distinction as to NOTE vs. WARNING that is documented? I've
>> always assumed (wrongly?) that NOTES weren't an issue with publishing on
>> CRAN, but that they may change to WARNINGS at some point.
>
>
> We won't
Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example
or two for the list?
Jeff
P.S.
I meant to also thank all of CRAN volunteers for the momentous efforts
involved, and it is nice to see some explanation of how w
On 27.03.2012 19:10, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
Is there a distinction as to NOTE vs. WARNING that is documented? I've
always assumed (wrongly?) that NOTES weren't an issue with publishing on
CRAN, but that they may change to WARNINGS at some point.
We won't kick packages off CRAN for Notes (but we
Is there a distinction as to NOTE vs. WARNING that is documented? I've
always assumed (wrongly?) that NOTES weren't an issue with publishing on
CRAN, but that they may change to WARNINGS at some point.
Is the process by which this happens documented somewhere?
Jeff
On 3/27/12 11:09 AM, "Gabor G
2012/3/27 Uwe Ligges :
>
>
> On 27.03.2012 17:09, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
>>> http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
>>> and we would like to draw this to the a
On 27/03/2012 15:17, Paul Gilbert wrote:
One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
packages immediately after putting a version on CRAN, or I get an
message about version suitability. This is probabl
On 27.03.2012 17:09, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
wrote:
CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
and we would like to draw this to the attention of package maintainers. In
particular,
On 27.03.2012 17:22, Paul Gilbert wrote:
On 12-03-27 10:59 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 27.03.2012 16:17, Paul Gilbert wrote:
One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
packages immediately after
On 12-03-27 10:59 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 27.03.2012 16:17, Paul Gilbert wrote:
One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
packages immediately after putting a version on CRAN, or I get an
messa
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
wrote:
> CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
> http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html
> and we would like to draw this to the attention of package maintainers. In
> particular, please
>
> - always send a submission email t
On 27.03.2012 16:17, Paul Gilbert wrote:
One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
packages immediately after putting a version on CRAN, or I get an
message about version suitability. This is proba
One of the things I have noticed with the R 2.15.0 RC and --as-cran is
that the I have to bump the version number of the working copy of my
packages immediately after putting a version on CRAN, or I get an
message about version suitability. This is probably a good thing for
packages that I have
51 matches
Mail list logo
