> - You as maintainer of a project are its steward; do you feel you can entrust
the experience the users of your package will have to someone for whom you
yourself have no email or name?
My initial reaction too. However, it's entirely possible that a GitHub
username is a more important form of
Thanks Dirk. Indeed, these are useful questions; ultimately, it's why
I'm emphasizing this is a 'ctb' role, from ?person
> Use for authors who have made smaller contributions (such as code patches
> etc.) but should not show up in the package citation.
I think anonymous/pseudonymous contribution
Two meta-issues
- You as maintainer of a project are its steward; do you feel you can entrust
the experience the users of your package will have to someone for whom you
yourself have no email or name?
Now, that question is rhetorical in the context of your repo as the thread
demonstrate
Thanks all. I think once we agree (1) real names for 'ctb' are not
required ('encouraged' is probably more accurate) and (2) R CMD check
will continue to emit the 'NOTE', I think there are a few options,
Martin's and Ben's both seem OK.
Ben's suggestion to check the existing author list is good, t
Hmmm. Why not
person(given = "@github_user_id", role = "ctb") ?
At least at a quick skim, I don't see anything in either _Writing R
Extensions_ or the CRAN repository policies that gives detailed
specifications about what's required/recommended in the 'person' field ...
The closest
> Michael Chirico
> on Tue, 27 May 2025 10:38:59 -0700 writes:
> Hello,
> We recently started receiving contributions from a user who prefers to
> only use their GitHub ID.
> I tried this entry in DESCRIPTION (with their actual ID):
> person(comment=c(github="@gi
