Terry
Let me call this things to think about, rather than advice. I went
through a similar process twice, once about 30 years ago and once about
20 years ago. I had fewer dependent packages of course, but still enough
to cause headaches. I don't recommend doing it often.
- I think you need t
> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a
non-upwardly compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is
not something to
> take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go about
it. I'm looking
> for advice.
>
> The chan
> On Jun 1, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Peter Langfelder
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
> wrote:
>>
>> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
>> compatable
>> change to the survfit object. With over 600 depende
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
> compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not
> something to
> take lightly, and I am currently
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
> compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not
> something to
> take lightly, and I am currently
