From MSchwartz at MedAnalytics.com  Fri Oct  8 19:01:02 2004
From: MSchwartz at MedAnalytics.com (Marc Schwartz)
Date: Fri Oct  8 19:01:09 2004
Subject: [Rd] Dumb question time - R patched vs. R devel
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410081749460.11219-100000@gannet.stats>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410081749460.11219-100000@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <1097254862.17307.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 11:53, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more
> > Ginko/Ginseng....
> > 
> > The current R patched tarballs and diff file
> > (ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be
> > for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes
> > sense.
> > 
> > If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches
> > actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being
> > auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion
> > repository?
> 
> The latter. They should be ignored until Martin Maechler is able to create 
> the correct ones.
> 
> > Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version?
> 
> No.
> 
> > I have been trying to avoid using subversion (given past discussions)
> > and downloading tarballs when I need to update my working version.
> 
> The only way to get R-patched from the R-2-0-patches branch is by
> svn co https://svn.r-project/R/branches/R-2-0-patches.  But be prepared to 
> be patient, as it had not completed for me in 2 hours this morning.
> Also, as the date-stamp is not being updated, it will report the wrong 
> date.
> 
> I suggest ignoring R-patched for now.  All the patches are in R-devel, and 
> only a very small number of other things.


Prof. Ripley,

Thanks for the clarifications!

Best regards,

Marc


[Rd] Dumb question time - R patched vs. R devel
Marc Schwartz