Before I risk wasting the CRAN maintainers' time with a query, can
anyone see what I'm missing here? Everything I can see looks OK, with
the possible exception of the 'NA' result for "CRAN incoming
feasibility" on r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64 (which surely isn't my fault???)
Any help appre
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:04, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>Before I risk wasting the CRAN maintainers' time with a query, can
> anyone see what I'm missing here? Everything I can see looks OK, with
> the possible exception of the 'NA' result for "CRAN incoming
> feasibility" on r-devel-windows-ix86+x
Thanks, but I don't think that's the problem because:
(1) Those are reported as being from the last released version, not
this one.
(2) As far as I can tell from my local tests, I'm pretty sure I've
fixed these issues in the current release.
(3) In my experience UBSAN tests don't gen
On 10/12/20 4:34 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
You are right. I was too fast and didn't read "last released version".
Then the only suspicious thing I see is:
Overall checktime 23 min > 10 min
I agree that's unfortunate, but it doesn't seem grounds for summary
rejection ... ? (CRAN policy says
You are right. I was too fast and didn't read "last released version".
Then the only suspicious thing I see is:
Overall checktime 23 min > 10 min
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:25, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>Thanks, but I don't think that's the problem because:
>
> (1) Those are reported as being f
There's this one in
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/lme4_1.1-24_20201012_210730/Windows/00check.log:
Comparing 'lmer-1.Rout' to 'lmer-1.Rout.save' ...428d427
< boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular
430d428
< boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular
Those messages about t
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:40, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
> On 10/12/20 4:34 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > You are right. I was too fast and didn't read "last released version".
> > Then the only suspicious thing I see is:
> >
> > Overall checktime 23 min > 10 min
>
>I agree that's unfortunate, but it doe
On 10/12/20 4:40 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
There's this one in
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/lme4_1.1-24_20201012_210730/Windows/00check.log:
Comparing 'lmer-1.Rout' to 'lmer-1.Rout.save' ...428d427
< boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular
430d428
< boundary (sing
Actually more than 23 minutes check time for a single package is really
excessive, can you pls cut that down?
This comes from
** running tests for arch 'i386' ... [509s] OK
** running tests for arch 'x64' ... [501s] OK
so only tests take 1010 seconds already.
I see that lme4 is a really impor
Sure. I assume I should aim for <10 minutes since that's the
threshold for a NOTE ... (for what it's worth the tests take a bit less
than 25% as long on my Linux laptop, since an individual test run is
more than twice as fast and we only have to check one architecture ...)
Do I interp
On 12/10/2020 5:17 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:40 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
There's this one in
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/lme4_1.1-24_20201012_210730/Windows/00check.log:
Comparing 'lmer-1.Rout' to 'lmer-1.Rout.save' ...428d427
< boundary (singular) fit
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's either a
too-sensitive test or something serious.
Duncan Murdoch
That's fair enough, but it would be nice if (1) this were a NOTE and
(2) it were made explicit in the CRAN policy that, *except by special
exception*, an u
On 12/10/2020 6:14 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's either a
too-sensitive test or something serious.
Duncan Murdoch
That's fair enough, but it would be nice if (1) this were a NOTE and
I don't think so. As I said, I think it sh
On 10/12/20 6:36 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:14 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's either a
too-sensitive test or something serious.
Duncan Murdoch
That's fair enough, but it would be nice if (1) this were a NOTE an
On 12/10/2020 6:51 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
On 10/12/20 6:36 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:14 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's either a
too-sensitive test or something serious.
Duncan Murdoch
That's fair enough, but
On 10/12/20 7:37 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:51 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
On 10/12/20 6:36 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:14 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's
either a
too-sensitive test or something serious
16 matches
Mail list logo
