On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen <kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > My confusion is total. > > Suppose a package gets build (no errors) but fails check (error) and gets a > version bump. Does the package source then get propagated to the > web/repository? >
I'm confused by your question (sorry). >From the point of view of the build system, build and check errors are the same. Both will prevent a package from being propagated to the web/repository. If a package fails check and then gets a version bump it will not propagate to the web, because presumably a mere version bump did not fix the problem that caused the check failure. Dan > Best, > Kasper > > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Dan Tenenbaum <dtene...@fhcrc.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen >> <kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > So this thread is good for my follow up question. >> > >> > I am setting up a Windows box to test/fix bumphunter (newest version >> > 1.1.7) >> > which has been broken (R CMD check) for a while, especially on Windows. >> > >> > This page (bottom) >> > http://bioconductor.org/packages/2.13/bioc/html/bumphunter.html >> > suggests that the latest binary version for Windows is 1.1.0 which is >> > also >> > probably the last time it build and checked properly. So this all >> > reflects >> > my expectations of not being able to get a binary version newer than >> > 1.1.0 >> > >> > However, when I install R-3.0.1 under windows, source biocLite and do >> > useDevel(TRUE) (getting BiocInstaller version 1.11.3) and then do >> > biocLite("bumphunter") >> > I get version 1.1.7. Why? I am asking for binary versions and nor >> > source. >> > >> >> The website wasn't being updated due to an unrelated issue. Fixed now. >> Dan >> >> >> > Best, >> > Kasper >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Dan Tenenbaum <dtene...@fhcrc.org> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 30, 2013, Kasper Daniel Hansen >> >> <kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Doesn't this mean that the issue Wolfgang discusses only arises when >> >> > people install from subversion? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> > Kasper >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Martin Morgan <mtmor...@fhcrc.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 06/30/2013 03:32 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2013 12:43 PM, "Kasper Daniel Hansen" < >> >> >>> kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Also, as far as I understand, the package does not get build using >> >> >>>> the new >> >> >>>> commit, if it has already been build with that version number >> >> >>>> before. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The package is built but not propagated to the web/repository. This >> >> >>> "feature" allows developers to check that their changes get built >> >> >>> by >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >> >> >> It's more a safety measure -- if the developer FORGETS to bump, then >> >> >> at >> >> >> least we are not distributing two implementations under the same >> >> >> version >> >> >> number. >> >> >> >> >> >> As Wolfgang says, version numbers are free so no need to hold back >> >> >> on >> >> >> their use. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >>> build system, but yes, once you're satisfied that things work, you >> >> >>> should >> >> >>> bump the version number to propagate the package and avoid the >> >> >>> confusion >> >> >>> Wolfgang describes. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Dan >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Best, >> >> >>>> Kasper >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Wolfgang Huber <whu...@embl.de> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi All, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> just a reminder that it is good practice to bump up the package >> >> >>>>> version >> >> >>>>> when you commit a change to a package's source, even if you >> >> >>>>> consider >> >> >>>>> it >> >> >>>>> 'trivial'. Version numbers are free, while the confusion ensuing >> >> >>>>> from >> >> >>> >> >> >>> there >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> being different versions of the software with ostensibly the same >> >> >>> >> >> >>> version >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> can waste a great deal of someone's time. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Dan / Bioc-Core team: would it be good to mention this somewhere >> >> >>>>> on >> >> >>>>> http://bioconductor.org/developers/source-control ? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best wishes >> >> >>>>> Wolfgang >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> >> >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> >> >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel >> >> >>> >> >> >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> >> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Computational Biology / Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >> >> >> 1100 Fairview Ave. N. >> >> >> PO Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109 >> >> >> >> >> >> Location: Arnold Building M1 B861 >> >> >> Phone: (206) 667-2793 >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
