great thanks for the explanation Uwe On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:01 AM Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > > On 05.11.2024 20:54, Iris Simmons wrote: > > 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. > > This is much more difficult. > > Most notes are actually also auo rejected, but not all, and that is a > moving target, as we try to automate as much as possible. > > Jumps in version numbers or results of spell check have a non neglible > probability of false positives, hence get manually inspected once raised > by the auto check system. > > In this case the jump 1 --> 11 was flagged, because many people actually > mean 1.1 instead, but it got manually confirmed and published. > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > > 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
______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
