I must have missed the bit where anyone mentioned Title Case. CRAN's rules are definitely solid the vast majority of the time, and I've opted for a GitHub/devtools based release.
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 18 April 2016 at 20:48, boB Rudis wrote: > | So, how do we create a solid alternative to CRAN? github drat wld have > | been impossible at my previous gig (for good reasons). Is it time to > | try to get rOpenSci to be a legit CRAN alternative? Add enough process > | around it to support things like this (i.e. a less narrowly focused > | Bioconductor)? Package complexities are only going to grow, not > | shrink. Such is this brave, new data science world we live in. > > You are just talking the talk which is cheap and doesn't get us anywhere. > If > you believe so strongly that this needs to be done, can you not rent a few > gb > of diskspace on S3 and get going? Walk the walk! > > I (greatly) appreciate what CRAN has done for us, and continues to do for > us. It is a gift economy, and with their free labour we get their rules, > for > better (mostly) or worse (rarely). I happen to disagree with one or two > minor aspects and may end up putting a support package or two onto a github > drat rather than CRAN itself. But as I continue to benefit greatly from > CRAN > as both a user and as a package author, I am (mostly) happy to cooperate. > They have executed a pretty relentless drive for higher code quality, more > and better code checks, better licensing conformance and more. > > And I honestly don't give a damn if some Brooklyn or Portland hipsters > complain about Title Case nagging as that too has merit (as it makes > aggregation pages more readable). > > <end of rant> > > Dirk > > -- > http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > <javascript:;> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
