Duncan,
you are right that from the perspective of a single developer: it is
entirely possible to make tests conditional and ensure that 'long'
tests does not get run by CRAN.
What I, and several others, advocate is a uniform set of conventions,
so we avoid having multiple package specific soluti
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Terry Therneau wrote:
> My biggest time offender is in the vignettes. After multiple readings of
> the docs I still can't quite figure out how to specify
> - pdf files that should be in the vignettes index, but are not .Rnw
> source
> - how to tel
For an external pointer
> xp
one might expect all.equal to behave as for environments
> e = new.env()
> all.equal(e, e)
[1] TRUE
but it does not
> all.equal(xp, xp)
Error in unclass(target) : cannot unclass an external pointer
A solution is to dispatch to all.equal.language (?) in
src/libr
I would second this suggestion.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I keep seeing the problem where people are download binary files as
> text (mode="w") when using R's download.file() for FTP/HTTP downloads.
> It often results in unnecessary troubleshooting unti
Some questions motivated by this discussion.
From the CRAN policy page:
"Checking the package should take as little CPU time as possible, as the CRAN check farm
is a very limited resource and there are thousands of packages. Long-running tests and
vignette code can be made optional for checking
This post contains two incorrect statements. Since Martin is too busy
to post a retraction, I will point them out:
--timings and --as-cran do not set _R_CHECK_TIMINGS_ in the same way.
As far as I recall, nobody has suggested that package writers be limited
to two choices for test suites. I
> Deepayan Sarkar
> on Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:49:37 +0530 writes:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Duncan Murdoch
> wrote:
>> On 12-09-04 8:19 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Duncan Murdoch
>>> wrote:
> Kasper Daniel Hansen
> on Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:41:38 -0400 writes:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>> On 04/09/2012 5:21 PM, John Fox wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to second this fairly simple request. I currently enclose
