From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Sun Sep 15 01:01:33 2013
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:01:33 -0400
Subject: [Rd] declaring package dependencies
In-Reply-To: <21044.24904.252175.502172@max.nulle.part>
References: <5231C3E3.3050007@yorku.ca> <5231FBD9.6050802@gmail.com>
	<523305BB.7090802@yorku.ca> <52331857.8090904@gmail.com>
	<21043.7886.743370.944182@max.nulle.part>
	<52332351.4070001@gmail.com>
	<21043.10494.783658.895362@max.nulle.part>
	<52333264.10602@gmail.com>
	<21043.13956.782639.908682@max.nulle.part>
	<52345ECC.7090407@gmail.com>
	<21044.24904.252175.502172@max.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <5234EACD.7030308@gmail.com>

On 13-09-14 9:14 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 14 September 2013 at 09:04, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> | On 13-09-13 12:00 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > But the focus here should not be on my hobby package. The focus needs to be
> | > on how four CRAN maintainers (who do a boatload of amazing work which is
> | > _truly_ appreciated in its thoroughness and reach) could make the life of
> | > authors of 4800+ packages easier by communicating and planning a tad more.
> |
> | Let me paraphrase that:  "The CRAN maintainers do a lot of work, and it
> | helps me a lot, but if they only did a little bit more work it would
> | help me even more."
> |
> | I suspect they'd be more receptive to suggestions that had them doing
> | less work, not more.
>
> Presumably that also holds for the authors of the 4800+ packages.

No, I don't think it does.  What benefit do the CRAN maintainers get 
from them?

>
> But my point is not the about "less", it is about "more predictable".
> Currently, the system appears to be anything but.  We can do better.

Then go ahead.  Do better.

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] declaring package dependencies
Duncan Murdoch