> Dominick Samperi
> on Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:27:58 -0500 writes:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson
wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>>
>> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
>> > > co
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>
> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
> > > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
> > > thread. Also I was not sugge
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
> > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
> > thread. Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were
> > purposefully mislea
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
> Hi, Dominick, et al.:
>
>
> I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the contributions of
> Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be appropriately
> recognized for their con
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck <
> ggrothendi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps a w
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the
contributions of Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be
appropriately recognized for their contributions.
However, I feel compelled to briefly outline personal experiences
with collaborat
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the
contributions of Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be
appropriately recognized for their contributions.
However, I feel compelled to briefly outline personal experiences
with collaborat
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
>> >> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
>> >> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptab
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> >> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> >> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> >> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
>> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
>> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
>> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
>> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
>> authors, an
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
> authors, and
> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
> authors, and as more progress is made, even more
> disparaging remarks
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:
> Against my better judgement I will try to correct a misconception. I
> fear that my message will only fan the flames but I also think that
> if we are to be subjected to long, drawn out, personal attacks on this
> subject then the readers o
13 matches
Mail list logo
