2018-04-18 22:49 GMT+02:00 Gertjan van den Burg :
> Thanks for your comment. Your suggestion wouldn't solve my original problem
> unfortunately, because then I'd have to reverse engineer R's RNG for my
> Python package. Besides, the quality of the random numbers doesn't really
> matter here, it onl
Your points are well taken, but it's also necessary (IMO) for the CRAN
maintainers to have some flexibility, while still being able to hold
package maintainers to account.
Long-time package maintainers (like you) have some issues that new
submitters don't; the large-component check was "only
On 18/04/2018 2:13 PM, J C Nash wrote:
If NOTEs are going to be treated as errors, then a lot of infrastructure (all my
packages for optimization and nonlinear modelling, which are dependencies of
a few dozen other packages etc.) will disappear. This is because they have
version
numbering I've b
On 18 April 2018 at 11:36, Gertjan van den Burg wrote:
| While waiting to get this message posted to the list, I've solved the
| problem by copying the stdlib rand() and srand() functions into my
| package under a different name. This makes the check pass and ensures my
| RNG does not interfere
If NOTEs are going to be treated as errors, then a lot of infrastructure (all my
packages for optimization and nonlinear modelling, which are dependencies of
a few dozen other packages etc.) will disappear. This is because they have
version
numbering I've been using in some form that pre-dates R a
For the purposes of CRAN submission, you should basically treat every
NOTE as an ERROR.
Hadley
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:36 AM, Gertjan van den Burg
wrote:
> While waiting to get this message posted to the list, I've solved the
> problem by copying the stdlib rand() and srand() functions into my
