On 10.12.2024 15:02, J C Nash wrote:
This is a question about how things are done rather than a request for a
fix.
Yesterday I re-submitted my optimx package with some small but important
fixes
(e.g., one place where one solver would miss catching function
evaluation limits).
I'd done a revdepcheck that came up with "Wow, no problems", but in fact
one of
the revdeps had a test failure which was already flagged in its checks
list on
CRAN. A package test example had a singularity on some systems. This can
happen with
nonlinear function minimization due to very small changes in arithmetic and
approximations of different systems. Putting in checks and "graceful
failure"
for such conditions is the ideal for optimization solvers, but it isn't
easy.
Some of the changes in the optimx update submitted are of this flavour.
When the submission checks came back this morning there was a
"Changes to worse in reverse depends:", even though there really is no
change.
However, I then got a msg "Thanks, on its way to CRAN."
Indeed, as I have seen the packages with "changes to worse" had similar
issues on another platform even before your change, I had let yours pass.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
Am I correct in assuming a manual review passed the package (which
hopefully I
did get fully compliant)? Or will I get an eventual "please fix" for
something
clearly outside my scope of action?
As indicated, at the moment this isn't a request for help, though that
may come
later.
Cheers,
John Nash
______________________________________________
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
