I agree... but trouble is in the eyes of the beholder. If OP's approval process requires use of actively-maintained software, then use of code depending on one of these "retired"/"superceded" packages could indeed be a problem... for the OP. OP cannot expect to be able to impose those requirements on others though.
On September 21, 2021 9:48:28 AM PDT, Hadley Wickham <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But for the broader question, Jeff is saying that there really are 700 >> packages that are in potential trouble! > >I think that's rather an overstatement of the problem — there's >nothing wrong with plyr; it's just no longer under active development. >If anything, plyr is one of the safest packages to depend upon because >you can know it will never change :) > >Hadley > -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
