On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:54 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14/08/2020 3:08 p.m., Cesko Voeten wrote:
> > A while ago, I submitted an update to my package 'buildmer' that does not
> > pass R CMD check. This is deliberate. The package contains functionality to
> > run on cluster nodes that were set up by the user and needs to access its
> > own internal functions from there. In previous versions of the package, I
> > had maintained a list of those functions and clusterExport()ed them, but
> > that had the side effect of overwriting any same-named user objects on the
> > user-provided cluster nodes, which I thought was poor form. The update
> > therefore accesses these functions using ':::', which triggers a check
> > warning.
> >
> > I thought the etiquette was to explain this in the 'Comments' box when
> > submitting, but this gave me the same automated message that the package
> > does not pass checks and that I should fix it or reply-all and explain.
> > This led me to believe that I should not have used the 'Comments' box for
> > this purpose, hence I resubmitted the package leaving the comments box
> > empty, and I replied-all to the subsequent e-mail I got with an explanation
> > similar to the above.
>
> It seems to me that what you should have done is "reply-all and
> explain", as the automated message said.
>
> > It has now been a while since I sent that e-mail (ten days), and I have yet
> > to hear back. I was wondering if the message had gotten lost, if they
> > simply haven't gotten around to it yet (I have no idea how much mail they
> > receive on a daily basis, but I'd think it's a lot more than I do), or if I
> > should have handled this differently. Only CRAN can answer the first two
> > questions, but before I bother them: was this the correct procedure, or
> > should I simply have done something differently?
> >
>
> You can see the state of your submission using the foghorn package.
> cran_incoming("buildmer") currently shows your package is in the
> "archive", which means "package rejected: it does not pass the checks
> cleanly and the problems are unlikely to be false positives".
>
> I only see version 1.7 there, which may indicate that you resubmitted
> exactly the same package (down to the version number). As the
> instructions at
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/policies.html#Re_002dsubmission
> say, "Increasing the version number at each submission reduces confusion
> so is preferred even when a previous submission was not accepted."
>
> What I'd suggest now is that you do nothing more for a day or two,
> because CRAN members who aren't on holiday might read and respond to
> your message. If you don't hear anything, then I'd start over again,
> with a new version number, and an explanation in the comments, and
> likely a followup reply-all.
>
You have more than a few days. As it says on CRAN:
"CRAN submission is offline from Aug 14 to Aug 24, 2020 (CRAN team
vacation and maintainance work)"
> Alternatively, you could export those troublesome functions from your
> package but document them as for internal use only. Renaming them with
> a name starting with "." will make them harder for users to stumble
> upon, but you can still access them using buildmer::.something, you
> shouldn't need clusterExport(). Then you will meet the technical
> requirement and not need any explanation.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
--
Joshua Ulrich | about.me/joshuaulrich
FOSS Trading | www.fosstrading.com
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
