From josh.m.ulrich at gmail.com  Wed Mar 19 13:52:07 2014
From: josh.m.ulrich at gmail.com (Joshua Ulrich)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:52:07 -0500
Subject: [Rd] [RFC] A case for freezing CRAN
In-Reply-To: <CABFfbXt0PjHEw-4=VfeWeeosm_wOBH-fVsj85j9LMe81Lx0gWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABFfbXt0PjHEw-4=VfeWeeosm_wOBH-fVsj85j9LMe81Lx0gWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPPM_gS1Ey2UyyBSCqecT=NzWXKtREBoXmqNBussR8Hv1Zok3g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jeroen Ooms <jeroen.ooms at stat.ucla.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> ## Summary
>
> Extending the r-release cycle to CRAN seems like a solution that would
> be easy to implement. Package updates simply only get pushed to the
> r-devel branches of cran, rather than r-release and r-release-old.
> This separates development from production/use in a way that is common
> sense in most open source communities. Benefits for R include:
>
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems (especially from the perspective
of one who won't be doing the work).

There is nothing preventing you (or anyone else) from creating
repositories that do what you suggest.  Create a CRAN mirror (or more
than one) that only include the package versions you think they
should.  Then have your production servers use it (them) instead of
CRAN.

Better yet, make those repositories public.  If many people like your
idea, they will use your new repositories instead of CRAN.  There is
no reason to impose this change on all world-wide CRAN users.

Best,
--
Joshua Ulrich  |  about.me/joshuaulrich
FOSS Trading  |  www.fosstrading.com



[Rd] [RFC] A case for freezing CRAN
Joshua Ulrich