> ... which was less of a problem with our "legacy" spkgs, as you in many > cases could simply install an older or a more recent version when > available /somewhere/, or even easily create your own, just replacing > the upstream version in the src/ folder. > > More or less just out of curiosity, did we ever upgrade R because of > bugs in R (besides build/installation issues) R-thru-Sage users > complained about? > > R is pretty stable in its core set, so I would find that highly unlikely. However, we have definitely upgraded R because without having the latest R one would not have access to many (MANY) of the R user packages. R is pretty aggressive on allowing projects to specify e.g. R version > 2.10 to function properly, and so we've had to upgrade for that reason. I guess that is not a bug, though.
> Closer on topic, is there urgent need to upgrade our current version of > R? (The 'configure' bug I reported upstream May last year is by the way > still in 3.3.1, although the patch I submitted is pretty trivial.) > Like Maxima and others, in principle it would be great to have "rolling" upgrades that semi-automatically happened once passing some tests (in R's case, including graphics, maybe). Which presumably supports the general notion of decoupling things better? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
