On 14-03-20 2:15 AM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Winsemius" <dwinsem...@comcast.net>
To: "Jeroen Ooms" <jeroen.o...@stat.ucla.edu>
Cc: "r-devel" <r-devel@r-project.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:03:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] [RFC] A case for freezing CRAN
On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:45 PM, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Michael Weylandt
<michael.weyla...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading this thread again, is it a fair summary of your position
to say "reproducibility by default is more important than giving
users access to the newest bug fixes and features by default?"
It's certainly arguable, but I'm not sure I'm convinced: I'd
imagine that the ratio of new work being done vs reproductions is
rather high and the current setup optimizes for that already.
I think that separating development from released branches can give
us
both reliability/reproducibility (stable branch) as well as new
features (unstable branch). The user gets to pick (and you can pick
both!). The same is true for r-base: when using a 'released'
version
you get 'stable' base packages that are up to 12 months old. If you
want to have the latest stuff you download a nightly build of
r-devel.
For regular users and reproducible research it is recommended to
use
the stable branch. However if you are a developer (e.g. package
author) you might want to develop/test/check your work with the
latest
r-devel.
I think that extending the R release cycle to CRAN would result
both
in more stable released versions of R, as well as more freedom for
package authors to implement rigorous change in the unstable
branch.
When writing a script that is part of a production pipeline, or
sweave
paper that should be reproducible 10 years from now, or a book on
using R, you use stable version of R, which is guaranteed to behave
the same over time. However when developing packages that should be
compatible with the upcoming release of R, you use r-devel which
has
the latest versions of other CRAN and base packages.
As I remember ... The example demonstrating the need for this was an
XML package that cause an extract from a website where the headers
were misinterpreted as data in one version of pkg:XML and not in
another. That seems fairly unconvincing. Data cleaning and
validation is a basic task of data analysis. It also seems excessive
to assert that it is the responsibility of CRAN to maintain a synced
binary archive that will be available in ten years.
CRAN already does this, the bin/windows/contrib directory has subdirectories
going back to 1.7, with packages dated October 2004. I don't see why it is
burdensome to continue to archive these. It would be nice if source versions
had a similar archive.
The bin/windows/contrib directories are updated every day for active R
versions. It's only when Uwe decides that a version is no longer worth
active support that he stops doing updates, and it "freezes". A
consequence of this is that the snapshots preserved in those older
directories are unlikely to match what someone who keeps up to date with
R releases is using. Their purpose is to make sure that those older
versions aren't completely useless, but they aren't what Jeroen was
asking for.
Karl Millar's suggestion seems like an ideal solution to this problem.
Any CRAN mirror could implement it. If someone sets this up and commits
to maintaining it, I'd be happy to work on the necessary changes to the
install.packages/update.packages code to allow people to use it from
within R.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
