From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Wed Aug  5 02:45:37 2009
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:45:37 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Advice sought about Rd versions
In-Reply-To: <Zen-1MVqMR-0000Yo-9s@smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk>
References: <Zen-1MVqMR-0000Yo-9s@smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk>
Message-ID: <4A78D631.30109@stats.uwo.ca>

On 28/07/2009 1:21 PM, Michael Dewey wrote:
>  From R 2.9.0 we have the concept of versions for Rd files. The 
> manual is clear about the differences but I am unsure as to what I 
> should do about my existing packages. Is it recommended that I set 
> the version to 1.1 and then fix the errors R CMD check helpfully 
> points out and then subsequently do the same for later versions (the 
> manual mentions version 2 is coming)? What benefit will I gain?

This is currently somewhat in flux.  Ask again in a couple of weeks.

(My preference is that \Rdversion specifies a minimum version needed, so 
it's mostly redundant:  the DESCRIPTION file could be used to say the 
version of R needed, and Rd versions are going to change more slowly 
than R versions.  But as I said, this is in flux.)

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] Advice sought about Rd versions
Duncan Murdoch