On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/09/2012 5:42 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> >> On 4 September 2012 at 17:26, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> | On 04/09/2012 5:14 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> | > An add-on argument to the already established option --as-cran may be >> the >> | > best. >> | > >> | > And to iterate, what bugs me is that for _me_ on _my_ machine >> developing _my_ >> | > package I have remember how to enable what is now (as per CRAN's >> decree) >> | > "non-standard behaviour" of full testing. I fully agree with what >> Terry had >> | > said: more tests are better (when we develop). I want the full suite >> at my >> | > end; that is after all why we wrote it! >> | >> | You don't have to remember that, you need to figure it out once, write a >> | script that sets the environment variables that enable it, and then you >> | can forget it. >> >> "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." >> >> The main test script long had exactly such a setting; I wrote what I wrote >> because it is _still the wrong way around_ and as I happen to have added >> to >> unit tests this weekend _having suffered through precisely this setting_. >> >> But we are on different wavelengths here and I evidently do not get my >> point >> across to you. And as you are the one who could make a change where it >> matters, I have no choice but to rest my case in frustration. > > > If you want to give up, then give up, but then don't complain about the > current behaviour. If you want to fix it, then continue the discussion. > > You're right that we're on different wavelengths. If you want some tests to > run at home but not on CRAN, then somewhere there has to be a conditional. > I'm suggesting that the conditional should be "if there's a tight time > limit, skip this". > > I don't remember if this was your suggestion, but someone has suggested "if > we're running with the --as-cran option, skip this" and others have > suggested "if we're running on CRAN, skip this". I don't see why you find > my suggestion so objectionable. If you want, I'll repeat why I find the > other two suggestions objectionable.
I agree with Duncan that having an option long/short makes more sense than with/without cran, as long as cran sets that option to be short. I would also prefer a command line switch to R CMD check to an environment variable, but I'll be very happy with a standardized environment variable. Kasper > > Duncan Murdoch > > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
