On 10/20/2011 11:57 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
Generally, the absence of versioned dependencies makes it extremely
difficult to aggressively improve the design of a package.
I think that aggressively varying a given packages' API would be
confusing to most users, and damage acceptance of the pa
On 20.10.2011 18:25, Geoff Jentry wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Hadley Wickham wrote:
The optimal solution would be if R packages could depend on a specific
version of a package, and a user could have multiple packages
You used to be able to have a versioned install of a package, and then
load
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Hadley Wickham wrote:
The optimal solution would be if R packages could depend on a specific
version of a package, and a user could have multiple packages
You used to be able to have a versioned install of a package, and then
load a particular version. Not sure when it wa
> We did have an attempt at that for some versions, but I don't think it ever
> achieved all of its goals, and we've dropped it.
Yes, I remembered it used to be possible to do versioned installs, but
I don't think you could ever have them loaded simultaneously.
> I'm not sure it would be "optimal
On 11-10-20 10:56 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible
with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing
code. Many (~50) packages depend on 'igraph' and they, too, will most
probably break with the new version.
My inte
> My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible
> with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing
> code. Many (~50) packages depend on 'igraph' and they, too, will most
> probably break with the new version.
>
> My intended solution is, that I create a s
Thanks for the insight!
It is indeed true that naming the new version 'igraph1' (this is a
better name for the change it introduces), is optimal for the existing
packages.
I was a bit reluctant to do this, because of two reasons. First,
igraph exists as a Python package, and a C library as well,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Rainer M Krug wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, G?bor Cs?rdi wrote:
Dear R developers,
I am seeking advice on some $subject matter.
If this is intended to be a CRAN update, then really you need to ask
the CRAN crew about the possible implications (and I've sent
Sorry - not iplot, but igraph.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>
>> Dear R developers,
>>
>> I am seeking advice on some $subject matter.
>>
>> My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible
>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
> Dear R developers,
>
> I am seeking advice on some $subject matter.
>
> My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible
> with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing
> code. Many (~50) packages dep
Dear R developers,
I am seeking advice on some $subject matter.
My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible
with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing
code. Many (~50) packages depend on 'igraph' and they, too, will most
probably break with the n
11 matches
Mail list logo
