I hesitate to prolong this part of the conversation, but ...
... when CRAN says "issues need fixing before [DATE]" (e.g. see
https://hadley.github.io/cran-deadlines/), is that technically "on or
before" or "strictly before"? Without worrying about time zones at the
moment, if my deadline is 2026-01-01 and I upload a new version of my
package sometime on 2026-01-01, am I OK? Or do I need to have uploaded
a version on the previous day?
cheers
Ben Bolker
On 2025-12-11 6:38 p.m., Kenny, Christopher wrote:
Thank you both for your responses.
The deadline had not passed at the time the package was removed. It was before
the deadline at every single point on Earth. He removed the package early. It’s
an error, plain and simple.
I'm happy to share the email with the deadline if that would help.
Thank you also for reviewing the update to geomander.
(On the point of manual review, the package goes to newbies, but based on the
speed of the response, it may not take an entire human review in the same way
as other packages.)
Best,
Chris
________________________________________
From: Uwe Ligges <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 6:24 PM
To: Kenny, Christopher <[email protected]>; R Package Development
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Resubmitting Archived Packages
On 11.12.2025 20:07, Kenny, Christopher wrote:
Hello all,
I was looking for advice on best practices for resubmitting packages that were
archived.
This morning, Brian Ripley erroneously archived one of my packages (geomander)
prior to the deadline to fix a broken example. He then archived its reverse
dependencies a few minutes later.
Why erroneously? Your deadline passed.
A new deadline was set for the reverse dependencies, but as mail to the
maintainer bounced, that new deadline was not needed as the reverse
dependencies got archived for themselves as they are unmaintained.
Given that CRAN is closing for the winter soon, I would like to fix this issue
quickly. I have already resubmitted geomander this morning, as I had originally
planned. However, as the packages are archived, each now must undergo a manual
review, which takes more time.
Is it acceptable to submit the other downstream packages while the first is
awaiting manual checks, as long as they are submitted in order of the
dependency tree? As the original package had only a broken example and the
reverse dependencies were actively passing checks, the review should be simple.
Please submit geomander and get it accepted first. The others will be
auto-archived otherwise.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
I would appreciate any advice or wisdom on how to reupload them expeditiously.
Best,
Chris
christophertkenny.com - [email protected]
Christopher T. Kenny, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Data-Driven Social Science, Princeton
University
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
--
Dr. Benjamin Bolker
Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University
Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering
> E-mail is sent at my convenience; I don't expect replies outside of
working hours.
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
