On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote: <snip /> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly > > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this > > thread. Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were > > purposefully misleading, only that they might be misleading since they > > could be interpreted in terms of contribution even though they are > > stated in terms of lines of code. The author of the phrase may very > > well have felt that the current team had done a lot of work to add > > design ideas and develop and promote the software but perhaps the > > unfortunate way in how it was expressed in that phrase that came out > > as a seeming comment on the original creator's contribution rather > > than the intended comment on their own, presumably also significant, > > contribution. > > > > There is no reason given why this > should happen now, at this moment, and no explanation why > the same standard should not be applied to other package authors, > including other authors of Rcpp.
Dominick, You feel you are the aggrieved party so of course you will find conspiracy in the timing. An equally plausible explanation is that the current set of developers on Rcpp intended to alter the "contributions", to better reflect the current state of the package, some time ago but it slipped through the cracks. You are predisposed to see the bad where non may exist. But also, you should be discussing this in private with the package developers. There is nothing in this thread of relevance to R-devel (other than to publicly refute your claims so as to balance the record should someone come across this in the archives) as this has nothing to do with developing R. There is no-one here who can speak for the "R Community", because such a thing is not a concrete entity - you will just get the opinions of individuals. It is to the credit of this list (R-Devel) that this has not descended into a vitriolic stream of claim and counter claim. As for your claims about R Core, Doug has succinctly and clearly addressed your claims in that regard, regardless what you may personally believe. Rcpp is *not* an official product of the R Foundation, and neither is it part of the R distribution. Can we please take this elsewhere? Gavin. > This is not about this particular case, it is about "general ideas" > along the lines of your original post. > > Thanks, > Dominick > > > > > > -- > > Statistics & Software Consulting > > GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc. > > tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP > > email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
