On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Federico Calboli <federico.calb...@kuleuven.be> wrote:
> > Thus my question: when can I consider a library to be properly published and > really publicly available? CRAN and BioConductor are clearly gold standards. > What about Github? I am currently using the rule ‘not on CRAN == outright > rejection’. If Github is as good as CRAN I will include it on my list of > ‘the code is available in a functional state as claimed’. CRAN has certain rules that are necessary for CRAN to function but may not be necessary for a package to be useful (e.g. size of data in a non-data package, licensing, run time of examples etc). I would ask two things from developers of a new package: 1. package is available for download from somewhere public; 2. package passes R CMD check without errors or warnings. Possibly also an explanation why they cannot upload the package to CRAN or Bioconductor, but I would not make the acceptance by CRAN or Bioconductor a condition for publishing. Just my humble opinion. Peter ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
