Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Dan Tenenbaum
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote: > So this thread is good for my follow up question. > > I am setting up a Windows box to test/fix bumphunter (newest version 1.1.7) > which has been broken (R CMD check) for a while, especially on Windows. > > This page (bottom) > http:

Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Kasper Daniel Hansen
My confusion is total. Suppose a package gets build (no errors) but fails check (error) and gets a version bump. Does the package source then get propagated to the web/repository? Best, Kasper On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Kasper Danie

Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Dan Tenenbaum
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote: > My confusion is total. > > Suppose a package gets build (no errors) but fails check (error) and gets a > version bump. Does the package source then get propagated to the > web/repository? > I'm confused by your question (sorry). >From

Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Kasper Daniel Hansen
So what I saw yesterday (I think .. :) is that bumphunter was failing R CMD check (it does not fail today) for version 1.1.7 (and earlier versions as well) and still I was able to download the windows binary for 1.1.7. As I understand it, that should be impossible since it failed R CMD check. Bes

Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Dan Tenenbaum
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote: > So what I saw yesterday (I think .. :) is that bumphunter was failing R CMD > check (it does not fail today) for version 1.1.7 (and earlier versions as > well) and still I was able to download the windows binary for 1.1.7. As I > under

Re: [Bioc-devel] svn and package version numbers

2013-07-05 Thread Kasper Daniel Hansen
Fair enough (for other readers: Dan and I are having some private correspondance about this error, and currently we believe it to be random/transient). Kasper On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote: > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen > wrote: > > So what I saw