From therneau at mayo.edu  Thu Mar 20 14:00:26 2014
From: therneau at mayo.edu (Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:00:26 -0500
Subject: [Rd] The case for freezing CRAN
In-Reply-To: <F6B1E03C-BB62-4B7D-A56C-C94DC934D5FE@gmail.com>
References: <3dfcdc$fuu13r@ironport9.mayo.edu>
	<F6B1E03C-BB62-4B7D-A56C-C94DC934D5FE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6e55ab$8iijgo@ironport10.mayo.edu>



On 03/20/2014 07:48 AM, Michael Weylandt wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:19, "Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D." <therneau at mayo.edu> wrote:
>
>> There is a central assertion to this argument that I don't follow:
>>
>>> At the end of the day most published results obtained with R just won't be reproducible.
>>
>> This is a very strong assertion. What is the evidence for it?
>
> If I've understood Jeroen correctly, his point might be alternatively phrased as "won't be reproducED" (i.e., end user difficulties, not software availability).
>
> Michael
>

That was my point as well.  Of the 30+ Sweave documents that I've produced I can't think 
of one that will change its output with a new version of R.  My 0/30 estimate is at odds 
with the "nearly all" assertion.  Perhaps I only do dull things?

Terry T.



[Rd] The case for freezing CRAN
Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D.