My 2¢: if precision is required, use a timestamp, including time zone. It's only a few character more.
Alternatively, something like 'before YYYY-MM-DD (N days, m hours)'. Mike C On Fri, Dec 12, 2025, 8:21 AM Michael Dewey <[email protected]> wrote: > As a native speaker of the dialect spoken in the south east of England I > find "before" much clearer. Before Sunday means not later than Saturday > to me. I find "by" less clear, by Sunday could mean before Monday. > > Michael > > On 12/12/2025 15:40, Uwe Ligges wrote: > > > > > > On 12.12.2025 16:33, Ben Bolker wrote: > >> 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? > > > > "Before" is meant as "<". > > > > In the past we had communication issues as is was not obvious for > > everybody that British English speakers use "by" in the sense of "<". > > I believed "before" was clear enough, but maybe we have to use a > > mathematical expression? > > > > Best, > > Uwe Ligges > > > > > > > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > > -- > Michael Dewey > > ______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
