From mdowle at mdowle.plus.com  Thu Aug 26 19:06:06 2010
From: mdowle at mdowle.plus.com (Matthew Dowle)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:06:06 +0100
Subject: [Rd] reliability of R-Forge? (moved to R-Devel)
References: <AANLkTimaV9pQgY7rifD8ogsSiciTcvrZ3SsYCWZTYvRK@mail.gmail.com>	<1282808371.2302.69.camel@desktop.localdomain><alpine.LRH.1.00.1008261122110.8608@oebafba.bjyevire.pbz>
	<4C769939.9050707@structuremonitoring.com>
Message-ID: <i566u4$14o$1@dough.gmane.org>

Hi Spencer,

Each commit increments the svn revision number
regardless of the build status. md5sums on pkg may
not change for commits (only) to www and branches.

Yes, the DESCRIPTION file contains a field containing
the package version number. The author edits that field
and commits that change whenever they like.

AFAIK
Matthew

"Spencer Graves" <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com> wrote in message 
news:4C769939.9050707 at structuremonitoring.com...
Hi, Russ:


  As noted by Brian Peterson in a separate email, R-Forge has a
"Revision" number in addition to the version number.  For example, the
'fda' package is currently at version 2.2.3 with Rev.: 484 on R-Forge.
Each SVN Commit increments the Rev. number [after a successful build, I
think], but the version number only changes if that change includes a
change in the revision number in the DESCRIPTION.  I don't know for
sure, but I assume that the "md5sums" probably changes with each Rev.


  If this is NOT correct, I hope someone who knows will clarify this.


  Best Wishes,
  Spencer


########################
        I earlier moved a part of this thread to R-Devel, and got some
replies there.


       At least one page on R-Forge says, "We are currently adapting the
R-packages-plugin in order to work together with the new FusionForge
infrastructure. Some services are thus not yet available."  I don't know
if R-Forge is accepting new volunteers, but it looks like they could use
help.  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to volunteer.


       Best Wishes,
       Spencer Graves


On 8/26/2010 8:28 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Gavin Simpson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 02:30 -0400, David Kane wrote:
>>> How reliable is R-Forge? http://r-forge.r-project.org/
>>>
>>> It is down now (for me). Reporting "R-Forge Could Not Connect to
>>> Database: "
>
> late to chime in, so had tossed the first piece.  As this relates to
> 'reliability of R-Forge' in the sense of possible process issues,
> rather than availability of the archive, I wanted to 'tag into' this
> thread
>
> I 'mirror' r-forge, so I have not seen this ...
>
> One thing I note, mirroring r-forge, and processing 'diffs' netween
> successive days, is that the md5sums of some packages regularly change
> without version number bumps.  From this morning's report in my email:
>
> Thu Aug 26 04:30:01 EDT 2010
>
> --- /tmp/rforge-pre.txt 2010-08-26 04:30:33.000000000 -0400
> +++ /tmp/rforge-post.txt        2010-08-26 04:38:03.000000000 -0400
> @@ -8,18 +8,18 @@
>  AquaEnv_1.0-1.tar.gz   615059a5369d1aba149e6142fedffdde
>  ArvoRe_0.1.6.tar.gz    c955ae7c64c4270740172ad2219060ff
>  BB_2010.7-1.tar.gz     4f85093ab24fac5c0b91539ec6efb8b7
> -BCE_2.0.tar.gz 5a3fe3ecabbe2b2e278f6a48fc19d18d
> -BIOMOD_1.1-5.tar.gz    d2f74f21bc8858844f8d71627fd8e687
> +BCE_2.0.tar.gz 65a968c586e729a1c1ca34a37f5c293a
> +BIOMOD_1.1-5.tar.gz    6929e5ad6a14709de7065286ec684942
>  ...
> -BTSPAS_2010.08.tar.gz  16b8f265846a512c329f0b52ba1924ab
> +BTSPAS_2010.08.tar.gz  809a96b11f1094e95b217af113abd0ac
>  ...
> -BayesR_0.1-1.tar.gz    72bd41c90845032eb9d15c4c6d086dec
> +BayesFactorPCL_0.5.tar.gz      173ab741c399309314eff240a4c3cd6f
> +BayesR_0.1-1.tar.gz    9560b511f1b955a60529599672d58fea
>  ...
> -BiplotGUI_0.0-6.tar.gz 594b3a275cde018eaa74e1ef974dd522
> +BiplotGUI_0.0-6.tar.gz 857a484fdba6cb97be4e42e38bb6d0fd
>  ...
> -IsoGene_1.0-18.tar.gz  679a5aecb7182474ed6a870fa52ca2e3
> +IsoGene_1.0-18.tar.gz  f37572957b2a9846a8d738ec88ac8690
>
> and so forth.  I've not taken the trime to understand why seemingly
> new versions are appearing without version bumps yet.
>
> Is anyone aware of explanations, other than a release process that
> does not require unique versioning of differing content? [it seems
> pretty basic to me that a 'receiver' of new content could do the
> checks I do, and decline to push conflicting md5sums over an
> identically named prior candidate in archive]
>
> -- Russ herrold
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Operating Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San Jos?, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567



[Rd] reliability of R-Forge? (moved to R-Devel)
Matthew Dowle