From mdowle at mdowle.plus.com  Fri Mar 30 10:49:04 2012
From: mdowle at mdowle.plus.com (Matthew Dowle)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:49:04 +0000
Subject: [Rd] CRAN policies
References: <mailman.19.1333015207.14516.r-devel@r-project.org>
	<4F746B54.2050601@mayo.edu>
	<E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B9328EC77@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>
	<loom.20120329T190333-975@post.gmane.org>
	<E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B9328EDE3@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>
	<4F74B657.5040807@prodsyse.com>
	<E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B9328EEFC@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>,
	<CABdHhvGp4f6KAqa5ba8xB-JH0sh0y87J+xRZeTW9DSwzowpV2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<3D59DF35E7CF3E42BA70C23BD5CBE6A85F820247B0@exvic-mbx04.nexus.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <loom.20120330T102301-566@post.gmane.org>

<Mark.Bravington <at> csiro.au> writes:

> There must be over 2000 people who have written CRAN packages by now; every 
extra
> check and non-back-compatible additional requirement runs the risk of 
generating false-negatives and
> incurring many extra person-hours to "fix" non-problems. Plus someone needs 
to document and explain the
> check (adding to the rule mountain), plus there is the time spent in 
discussions like this..!

Not sure where you're coming from on that. For example, Prof Ripley has added 
quite a few new NOTEs to QC.R over the last few months. These caught things I 
wasn't aware of in the two packages I maintain and I was more than happy to fix 
them. It improves quality, surely.

There's only one particular NOTE causing an issue: 'no visible binding'. If it 
were made a MEMO, we can move on. All the other NOTEs can (and should) be 
fixed, can't they?

Matthew



[Rd] CRAN policies
Matthew Dowle