Dear sir
how fix this note
checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTEMaintainer: 'Ulavappa B.
Angadi '
With regards
Angadi U B
Sr. Scientist
CABin, IASRI, Pusa, New Delhi
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org
Hi,
we had a related discussion some time ago in the JSS editorial board. It
was a long and partly emotional discussion of the pros and cons, but the
good news was that if a code is MIT, it can be re-licensed as GPL, while
it would not not be possible in the opposite direction (except by the
On 30 August 2018 at 08:34, Charles Determan wrote:
| It has come to my attention that some of the code I am distributing in one
| of my packages was previously licensed under the MIT license. I have
| previously released my package under the GPL-3 license. Would it be more
| appropriate for me
R developers,
It has come to my attention that some of the code I am distributing in one
of my packages was previously licensed under the MIT license. I have
previously released my package under the GPL-3 license. Would it be more
appropriate for me to change the license to MIT? I know no one h
El jue., 30 ago. 2018 a las 9:02, Ulavappa Angadi
() escribió:
>
> Dear sir
>
> How to fix the below problem and details as below kindly help
>
>
> * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... WARNING
> mbferns:
> function(x, ...)
> mbferns.default:
> function(x, y, nf, fsize, bnum)
>
> predict
Dear sir
How to fix the below problem and details as below kindly help
* checking S3 generic/method consistency ... WARNING
mbferns:
function(x, ...)
mbferns.default:
function(x, y, nf, fsize, bnum)
predict:
function(object, ...)
predict.mbferns:
function(model1, x)
See section 'Generi
