From @pencer@gr@ve@ @end|ng |rom e||ect|vede|en@e@org  Tue Nov 10 14:58:31 2020
From: @pencer@gr@ve@ @end|ng |rom e||ect|vede|en@e@org (Spencer Graves)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:58:31 -0600
Subject: [Rd] one thing to check
In-Reply-To: <6F12BE7A-447F-48C2-BD8B-373EA350B5F1@mcgill.ca>
References: <6F12BE7A-447F-48C2-BD8B-373EA350B5F1@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <f90e075a-80e0-42ea-e9aa-47099512465c@effectivedefense.org>

Hi, Jim:


	  Could you please look at svd2.Rd and see what it says?  It may give 
an example, where it gave a better answer than svd -- i.e., a marginal 
case, where svd2 honestly gave a better answer than svd.


	  If we find -- either in svd2.Rd or in one of the revdepchecks -- an 
example where svd2 gives a demonstrably different answer, we need to 
consider what to do about that.


		    1.  Is the different answer demonstrably better?  If yes, can we 
fix it without LINPACK?  If yes, do that.  If no, we document those 
concerns, send them to R-Devel <r-devel at r-project.org>, and retain svd2 
in fda and keep its use as it was.  Then R-Devel can deal with the 
problem however they want, and it won't affect fda -- at least not right 
now.


		    2.  Does the different answer break something in revdepcheck 
because of a cosmetic problem?  If yes, try to communicate that issue 
with the maintainer(s) of the package(s) that would be affected by such 
a change.  I suggest you send them tell then that svd2 is now deprecated 
-- AND mark svd2.Rd with such a message -- while also sending them code 
for the function(s) they call that give them an error message, and tell 
them that you plan to remove svd2 from the next release, and ask them to 
fix that so a revdepcheck with that new code won't be flagged as an 
error.  AND ask them to notify you when they have a version on CRAN that 
works with your new code.


		    3.  If the new code gives a different answer that doesn't seem 
better in at least one example AND deleting svd2 doesn't break anything 
in revdepcheck, then delete it.


		    4.  If you still need to retain svd2 because of a revdepcheck 
problem, I'd also document that in "cran-comments.md".


	  What do you think?
	  spencer


On 2020-11-10 07:10, James Ramsay wrote:
> Hi Spencer,
> 
> One thing I?d like check with you:
> 
> I removed svd2 because CRAN indicated that LINPACK had been deprecated.  I replaced calls to svd2 with svd in geigen and CSTRfn.
> 
> This could be the issue with the two broken codes ? or not.  But what is your view about using svd instead of svd2, and do you have an idea of what to do about the LINPACK calls?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jim
>



[Rd] one thing to check
Spencer Graves