Thank you for this! It makes a lot of sense. I will adopt this version naming and testing scheme.
I do have some internet-based tests including a small download. These could be adding some variability so will move them out of the regular tests. Christopher Njuguna cell: +254 717 916 343 cell: +254 739 956 510 gchat: chris.njuguna skype: christopher.njuguna twitter: @chrisnjuguna On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > I can't speak to the recent increase on Windows. It may be load; it may be > related to R 3.5.0 --- but I'd even whittle things down from 5+ minutes. > At > one point in the past we were told to aim for 1 minute, give or take. > > So e.g. Rcpp has been using a scheme for _many_ years where I take a cue > from > the DESCRIPTION file. The rule I like (for my packages) is that versions > like > > 1.2.3.1 > > are "development" so I do a full test. Whereas versions like > > 1.2.4 > > are "release" -- so when I only see three components, I set a variable. And > the unit tests file can then use that variable to skip tests. This gives > me > fine-grained control: lighter-weight tests can still run in both cases. > Hence > shorter test time for release uploads at CRAN; yet I still get full tests > at > win-builder when I send a development version. > > Dirk > > -- > http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
