On 05.11.2024 20:54, Iris Simmons wrote:
The auto checker will publish an R package that has Status: OK and no
Note_to_CRAN_maintainers.
The auto checker will reject an R package that has WARNINGs and/or ERRORS.
The auto checker will flag an R package for manual inspection otherwise. A
CRAN team member will see your NOTE and know it's nothing to worry about
and publish it anyway. I've had similar before, and I've waited at most 5
hours for someone to check and approve it.
This is much more difficult.
Most notes are actually also auo rejected, but not all, and that is a
moving target, as we try to automate as much as possible.
Jumps in version numbers or results of spell check have a non neglible
probability of false positives, hence get manually inspected once raised
by the auto check system.
In this case the jump 1 --> 11 was flagged, because many people actually
mean 1.1 instead, but it got manually confirmed and published.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 14:29 Toby Hocking <tdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought that the auto-check robot only accepts submissions which
have Status: OK? (no NOTEs at all)
Is it documented somewhere which NOTEs are allowed by the auto-check
service?
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:10 AM Uwe Ligges
<lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote:
CRAN does not object to these versioning, the notes are not the reason
for rejection. Who told they are?
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 05.11.2024 01:02, Josiah Parry wrote:
Rolf,
The versioning method they’re using is referred to as CalVer
https://calver.org/ (not as catchy as SemVer) and it is actually quite
useful! With one look at the version you can get a good sense of it’s
general release date.
Posit, for example, moved their professional products to use this
versioning method a number of years ago.
I wouldn’t poopoo it so quickly!
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 15:32 Rolf Turner <rolftur...@posteo.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:33:40 -0500
Toby Hocking <tdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Version jumps in minor (submitted: 2024.11.2, existing: 2024.1.24)
It looks to me that you are setting your version numbers in an
unorthodox manner, which could/will confuse the living Drambuie out of
people.
I conjecture that you are setting your version number to represent the
relevant date. E.g. 2024.11.2 means 2 November, 2024 and 2024.1.24
means 24 January 2024.
In my understanding, the usual convention is for the version number to
be of the form l.m.n (or l.m-n) --- major.minor.patch (or
major.minor-patch). The date should be specified in the *Date* field
of
the DESCRIPTION file.
It probably does not matter a hell of a lot. "Writing R Extensions"
just says that the version number should be "a sequence of at least
two
(and usually three) non-negative integers separated by single ‘.’ or
‘-’ characters".
However you might save yourself some "NOTEs" by adhering to the
"l.m.n" convention and incrementing the components sequentially.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
--
Honorary Research Fellow
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Stats. Dep't. (secretaries) phone:
+64-9-373-7599 ext. 89622
Home phone: +64-9-480-4619
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
