The auto checker will publish an R package that has Status: OK and no Note_to_CRAN_maintainers.
The auto checker will reject an R package that has WARNINGs and/or ERRORS. The auto checker will flag an R package for manual inspection otherwise. A CRAN team member will see your NOTE and know it's nothing to worry about and publish it anyway. I've had similar before, and I've waited at most 5 hours for someone to check and approve it. On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 14:29 Toby Hocking <tdho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought that the auto-check robot only accepts submissions which > have Status: OK? (no NOTEs at all) > Is it documented somewhere which NOTEs are allowed by the auto-check > service? > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:10 AM Uwe Ligges > <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > > CRAN does not object to these versioning, the notes are not the reason > > for rejection. Who told they are? > > > > Best, > > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > > > > > On 05.11.2024 01:02, Josiah Parry wrote: > > > Rolf, > > > > > > The versioning method they’re using is referred to as CalVer > > > https://calver.org/ (not as catchy as SemVer) and it is actually quite > > > useful! With one look at the version you can get a good sense of it’s > > > general release date. > > > > > > Posit, for example, moved their professional products to use this > > > versioning method a number of years ago. > > > > > > I wouldn’t poopoo it so quickly! > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 15:32 Rolf Turner <rolftur...@posteo.net> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:33:40 -0500 > > >> Toby Hocking <tdho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> <SNIP> > > >> > > >>> Version jumps in minor (submitted: 2024.11.2, existing: 2024.1.24) > > >> > > >> It looks to me that you are setting your version numbers in an > > >> unorthodox manner, which could/will confuse the living Drambuie out of > > >> people. > > >> > > >> I conjecture that you are setting your version number to represent the > > >> relevant date. E.g. 2024.11.2 means 2 November, 2024 and 2024.1.24 > > >> means 24 January 2024. > > >> > > >> In my understanding, the usual convention is for the version number to > > >> be of the form l.m.n (or l.m-n) --- major.minor.patch (or > > >> major.minor-patch). The date should be specified in the *Date* field > of > > >> the DESCRIPTION file. > > >> > > >> It probably does not matter a hell of a lot. "Writing R Extensions" > > >> just says that the version number should be "a sequence of at least > two > > >> (and usually three) non-negative integers separated by single ‘.’ or > > >> ‘-’ characters". > > >> > > >> However you might save yourself some "NOTEs" by adhering to the > > >> "l.m.n" convention and incrementing the components sequentially. > > >> > > >> cheers, > > >> > > >> Rolf Turner > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Honorary Research Fellow > > >> Department of Statistics > > >> University of Auckland > > >> Stats. Dep't. (secretaries) phone: > > >> +64-9-373-7599 ext. 89622 > > >> Home phone: +64-9-480-4619 > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________ > > >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > > >> > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > > ______________________________________________ > > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
