From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Wed Mar 28 16:30:34 2012
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:30:34 -0400
Subject: [Rd] CRAN policies
In-Reply-To: <4F731B09.5000203@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
References: <CB9770B4.36D98%jeff.a.ryan@gmail.com>
	<4F731B09.5000203@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Message-ID: <CAP01uRmob_VSmgVc80yek3g4D3K0tedmmU1EbmHJ3CCpgRQDgw@mail.gmail.com>

2012/3/28 Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
>
>
> On 27.03.2012 20:33, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.
>>
>> Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. ?Do you have an example
>> or two for the list?
>
>
>
> We have to look at those notes again and again in order to find if something
> important is noted, hence please always try to avoid all notes unless the
> effect is really intended!
>
>
> Consider the Note "No visible binding for global variable"
> We cannot know if your code intends to use such a global variable (which is
> undesirable in most cases), hence would let is pass if it seems to be
> sensible.
>
> Another Note such as "empty section" or "partial argument match" can quickly
> be fixed, hence just do it and don't waste our time.
>
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges

What is the point of notes vs warnings if you have to get rid of both
of them?  Furthermore, if there are notes that you don't have to get
rid of its not fair that package developers should have to waste their
time on things that are actually acceptable.  Finally, it makes the
whole system arbitrary since packages can be rejected based on
undefined rules.

Either divide notes into significant notes and ordinary notes and
clearly label them as such in the output of   R CMD check   or else
make the significant notes warnings so one can know in advance whether
the package passes R CMD check or not.

-- 
Statistics & Software Consulting
GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com



[Rd] CRAN policies
Gabor Grothendieck