From andy_liaw@merck.com  Mon Oct 28 13:12:19 2002
From: andy_liaw@merck.com (Liaw, Andy)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:12:19 -0500
Subject: RFC: no automatic updates of packages with major version
 chan	ge
Message-ID: <51F9C42DA15CD311BD220008C707D81906FFC815@usrymx10.merck.com>

Is it possible to have a slightly more elaborate description, such as:

BackwardCompatibleTo: x.x-x

and if the new version is _not_ backward compatible, this would be the
current version number?

Just my $0.02...

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Hothorn [mailto:Torsten.Hothorn@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:25 AM
To: ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Friedrich.Leisch@ci.tuwien.ac.at; r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: RFC: no automatic updates of packages with major version
change



On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:

> Torsten,
> 
> I did suggest that test at an earlier stage in the discussions.  But some
> packages have so few examples they may well pass and have repercussions.
> 

ok, I see.

> I do think we need to address the problem: lattice_0.6-5 is another
> example of an API change.
> 
> Now, we could throw the onus on the maintainers to add a
> 
> BackwardsCompatible:FALSE
> 
> flag to the DESCRIPTION file, if people really think that would be easier.
> 

yes, that would be better than just assuming API changes in every major
release. 

Torsten

> Brian
> 
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Torsten Hothorn wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > We (Kurt Hornik, Brian Ripley & I) want to propose the following
> > > change to the automatic package updating mechanisms of R: A major
> > > version number change of a package will by default disable the
> > > automatic updating of packages, because the interface of the package
> > > might have changed and hence old code might not run anymore.
> > >
> > > A recent example was the release of mclust version 2.0, which is not
> > > fully compatible with mclust 1.x (functions got removed, others added
> > > and arguments renamed etc).
> > >
> > > Of course it is absolutely OK for a package to change its API,
> > > otherwise improvements would be rather hard, but it should be easier
> > > for users to stay with the old version until they have figured out
> > > what exactly the effects of an upgrade would be.
> > >
> > > We want to define a "major version number change" as a change of the
> > > first digit of the version number, such that 1.1.1 -> 2.0.0 is a major
> > > change, while 1.1.1 -> 1.2.0 is not. An exception will be that a move
> > > from 0.x to 1.x is no major change (because the 0.x series is read as
> > > "working towards 1.0").
> > >
> >
> > This definition requires EVERY package maintainer to be VERY careful
about
> > version numbers / API changes and I guess some of us (including me) may
> > fail this exercise.
> >
> > I suggest the following definition: the API of a package changed
> > iff the example code of the previous version of the package does not run
> > without an error. In contrast, the results of the computations may
> > differ. Of course, this induces additional effort to the CRAN
maintainers
> > but it should be possible to extract and check the examples of a CRAN
> > package against a new version BEFORE uploading the new version to CRAN.
In
> > addition, a flag `APIChange TRUE / FALSE' visible to `update.packages'
is
> > needed.
> >
> > Or should this be part of R CMD check? Maybe R CMD check can download
the
> > `official' release from CRAN to check against an API change and give a
> > warning?
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Torsten
> >
> > > In case of a major change
> > >
> > > *) update.packages() will warn the user if ask=TRUE, like
> > >
> > > mclust :
> > >  Version 1.1-7 in /usr/local/lib/R-contrib
> > >  Version 2.0-1 on CRAN
> > >  WARNING: major version number change
> > > Update (y/N)?
> > >
> > > *) if ask=FALSE, update.packages() will cowardly refuse the updates
> > >  and issue a warning for all packages that have not been updated.
> > >
> > > *) the same will be done for the methods working off packageStatus
> > >  objects.
> > >
> > > Note that we are already working on new package management tools which
> > > should make it easier to have multiple versions of a package installed
> > > simultaneously.
> > >
> > > All comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Fritz
> > >
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
-.-
> > > r-devel mailing list -- Read
http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
> > > Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
> > > (in the "body", not the subject !)  To:
r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
> > >
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
_._
> > >
> >
> >
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
-.-
> > r-devel mailing list -- Read
http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
> > Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
> > (in the "body", not the subject !)  To:
r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
> >
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
_._
> >
> 
> -- 
> Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
> Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
> University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
> 1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
> Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595
> 
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
-.-
> r-devel mailing list -- Read
http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
> Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
> (in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
>
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
_._
> 

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
_._


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message.  If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by e-mail and then delete it.

==============================================================================

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


RFC: no automatic updates of packages with major version chan ge
Liaw, Andy