On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
1. Get a fork.
2. From the master branch, create a new branch called fix-[something].
3. Put together the stuff there, commit, push and open a PR.
4. Checkout master and repeat from 2 to submit another patch.
Som
On 25 January 2018 at 06:20, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
| > For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
| >
| > 1. Get a fork.
| > 2. From the master branch, create a new branch called fix-[something].
| > 3. Put together the stuff there, commit, push and open
2018-01-25 12:20 GMT+01:00 Duncan Murdoch :
> On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
>>
>> 1. Get a fork.
>> 2. From the master branch, create a new branch called fix-[something].
>> 3. Put together the stuff there, commit, push and open a PR.
>> 4.
On 25/01/2018 6:49 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 25 January 2018 at 06:20, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
| > For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
| >
| > 1. Get a fork.
| > 2. From the master branch, create a new branch called fix-[something].
| > 3. Put
On 25/01/2018 7:03 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
2018-01-25 12:20 GMT+01:00 Duncan Murdoch :
On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
1. Get a fork.
2. From the master branch, create a new branch called fix-[something].
3. Put together the stuff there, commit
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
[...]
> but that branch doesn't show up in the Github web site.
It is right there:
https://github.com/dmurdoch/manipulateWidget/branches
> Any suggestions?
Personally I would suggest to call it master, because it is just
easier. Your maste
Hi Duncan,
I can see that branch on your github. Remember that you have to reload the
github page to see the latest additions to your repo. It doesn't do that
automatically.
Cheers
Joris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 25/01/2018 7:03 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
>
>> 2018
Hi Duncan!
I think there are many users whose first experiences with git where frustrating,
and trust me, many people here can relate to your pain. I can certainly say that
I can. At first, git makes significant effort to become fluent in seemingly
"simple" tasks. I can literally feel your pain r
This is exactly the instruction given in https://xkcd.com/1597/
cheers, J.O.
On 25/01/18 14:48, Mario Emmenlauer wrote:
Hi Duncan!
I think there are many users whose first experiences with git where frustrating,
and trust me, many people here can relate to your pain. I can certainly say that
On 01/25/2018 07:09 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 25/01/2018 6:49 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 25 January 2018 at 06:20, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| On 25/01/2018 2:57 AM, Iñaki Úcar wrote:
| > For what it's worth, this is my workflow:
| >
| > 1. Get a fork.
| > 2. From the master branch, create
On 25/01/2018 7:44 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
Hi Duncan,
I can see that branch on your github. Remember that you have to reload
the github page to see the latest additions to your repo. It doesn't do
that automatically.
Thanks, that was the issue.
Duncan Murdoch
On 25/01/2018 7:44 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
[...]
but that branch doesn't show up in the Github web site.
It is right there:
https://github.com/dmurdoch/manipulateWidget/branches
Any suggestions?
Personally I would suggest to call it
2018-01-25 16:07 GMT+01:00 Duncan Murdoch :
> On 25/01/2018 7:44 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Murdoch
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> but that branch doesn't show up in the Github web site.
>>
>>
>> It is right there:
>> https://github.com/dmurdoch/manipulateWi
Just following up on this old thread since matrixStats 0.53.0 is now
out, which supports this use case:
> x <- rep(TRUE, times = 2^31)
> y <- sum(x)
> y
[1] NA
Warning message:
In sum(x) : integer overflow - use sum(as.numeric(.))
> y <- matrixStats::sum2(x, mode = "double")
> y
[1] 2147483648
>
If you ever need to document issues / coding recipes related to GIT / SVN:
* I could pick the commands from e-mails.
* Any documentation you send me.
* Or books (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920022862.do), web pages,
etc..
And create a wiki / documentation page in any platform, in order to
I do not mind investing as much time as necessary :-)
> If you ever need to document issues / coding recipes related to GIT / SVN:
>
> * I could pick the commands from e-mails.
> * Any documentation you send me.
> * Or books (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920022862.do), web pages,
etc..
>
>
tl;dr is the R bug tracker down or am I being an idiot? Help please ...
I decided I would follow up on
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2018-January/075410.html
(reporting/suggesting a patch for an issue in stats::mantelhaen.test()
with large data sets)
Reading the instructions
Hi,
Installing a source package on Windows using utils::install.packages()
with quiet=TRUE fails, while it works with the default quiet = FALSE.
The problem seems to be caused by the fact that when quiet = TRUE,
stdout and stderr are set to FALSE when calling "R CMD INSTALL" with
base::system
18 matches
Mail list logo
