Re: [Rd] [EXTERNAL] Re: survival changes
Would this not be the case *for* a new package? FWIW I would much prefer packages maintainers who make significant changes also change the name of the package (e.g. to survival2). That way disturbance is minimized and the package’s developers can add features and refactor their code much faster. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 10:03 am, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel < r-devel@r-project.org> wrote: > > > On 6/1/19 1:32 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > > >> On Jun 1, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Peter Langfelder < > peter.langfel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel > >> wrote: > >>> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a > non-upwardly compatable > >>> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this > is not something to > >>> take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go > about it. I'm looking > >>> for advice. > >>> > >>> The change: 20+ years ago I had decided not to include the initial > x=0,y=1 data point in > >>> the survfit object itself. It was not formally an estimand and the > plot/points/lines etc > >>> routines could add this on themselves. That turns out to have been a > mistake, and has led > >>> to a steady proliferation of extra bits as I realized that the time > axis doesn't always > >>> start at 0, and later (with multi state) that y does not always start > at 1 (though the > >>> states sum to 1), and later the the error doesn't always start at 0, > and another > >>> realization with cumulative hazard, and ... > >>> The new survfit method for multi-state coxph models was going to add > yet another special > >>> case. Basically every component is turning into a duplicate of "row > 1" vs "all the > >>> others". (And inconsistently named.) > >>> > >>> Three possible solutions > >>> 1. Current working draft of survival_3.0.3: Add a 'version' element > to the survfit object > >>> and a 'survfit2.3' function that converts old to new. All my > downstream functions (print, > >>> plot,...) start with an "if (old) update to new" line. This has > allowed me to stage > >>> updates to the functions that create survfit objects -- I expect it to > happen slowly. > >>> There will also be a survfit3.2 function to go backwards. Both the > forward and backwards > >>> functions leave objects alone if they are currently in the desired > format. > >>> > >>> 2. Make a new class "survfit3" and the necessary 'as' functions. The > package would contain > >>> plot.survfit and plot.survfit3 methods, the former a two line "convert > and call the > >>> second" function. > >>> > >>> 3. Something I haven't thought of. > >> A more "clean break" solution would be to start a whole new package > >> (call it survival2) that would make these changes, and deprecate the > >> current survival. You could add warnings about deprecation and urging > >> users to switch in existing survival functions. You could continue > >> bugfixes for survival but only add new features to survival2. The new > >> survival2 and the current survival could live side by side on CRAN for > >> quite some time, giving maintainers of dependent packages (and just > >> plain users) enough time to switch. This could allow you to > >> change/clean up other parts of the package that you could perhaps also > >> use a rethink/rewrite, without too much concern for backward > >> compatibility. > >> > >> Peter > > > > Hi, > > > > I would be cautious in going in that direction, bearing in mind that > survival is a Recommended package, therefore included in the default R > distribution from the R Foundation and other parties. To have two versions > can/will result in substantial confusion, and I would argue against that > approach. > > > > There is language in the CRAN submission policy that covers API changes, > which strictly speaking, may or may not be the case here, depending upon > which direction Terry elects to go: > > > > "If an update will change the package’s API and hence affect packages > depending on it, it is expected that you will contact the maintainers of > affected packages and suggest changes, and give them time (at least 2 > weeks, ideally more) to prepare updates before submitting your updated > package. Do mention in the submission email which packages are affected and > that their maintainers have been informed. In order to derive the reverse > dependencies of a package including the addresses of maintainers who have > to be notified upon changes, the function > reverse_dependencies_with_maintainers is available from the developer > website." > > > > > > Given the potential extent and impact of the changes being considered, > it would seem reasonable to: > > > > 1. Post a note to R-Devel (possibly R-Help to cover a larger useR base) > regarding whatever changes are finalized and formally announce them. The > changes are likely to affect end useRs as well as package maintainers. > > > > 2. Send communications directly via
Re: [Rd] [EXTERNAL] Re: survival changes
On 6/1/19 1:32 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote: On Jun 1, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Peter Langfelder wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote: In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly compatable change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not something to take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go about it. I'm looking for advice. The change: 20+ years ago I had decided not to include the initial x=0,y=1 data point in the survfit object itself. It was not formally an estimand and the plot/points/lines etc routines could add this on themselves. That turns out to have been a mistake, and has led to a steady proliferation of extra bits as I realized that the time axis doesn't always start at 0, and later (with multi state) that y does not always start at 1 (though the states sum to 1), and later the the error doesn't always start at 0, and another realization with cumulative hazard, and ... The new survfit method for multi-state coxph models was going to add yet another special case. Basically every component is turning into a duplicate of "row 1" vs "all the others". (And inconsistently named.) Three possible solutions 1. Current working draft of survival_3.0.3: Add a 'version' element to the survfit object and a 'survfit2.3' function that converts old to new. All my downstream functions (print, plot,...) start with an "if (old) update to new" line. This has allowed me to stage updates to the functions that create survfit objects -- I expect it to happen slowly. There will also be a survfit3.2 function to go backwards. Both the forward and backwards functions leave objects alone if they are currently in the desired format. 2. Make a new class "survfit3" and the necessary 'as' functions. The package would contain plot.survfit and plot.survfit3 methods, the former a two line "convert and call the second" function. 3. Something I haven't thought of. A more "clean break" solution would be to start a whole new package (call it survival2) that would make these changes, and deprecate the current survival. You could add warnings about deprecation and urging users to switch in existing survival functions. You could continue bugfixes for survival but only add new features to survival2. The new survival2 and the current survival could live side by side on CRAN for quite some time, giving maintainers of dependent packages (and just plain users) enough time to switch. This could allow you to change/clean up other parts of the package that you could perhaps also use a rethink/rewrite, without too much concern for backward compatibility. Peter Hi, I would be cautious in going in that direction, bearing in mind that survival is a Recommended package, therefore included in the default R distribution from the R Foundation and other parties. To have two versions can/will result in substantial confusion, and I would argue against that approach. There is language in the CRAN submission policy that covers API changes, which strictly speaking, may or may not be the case here, depending upon which direction Terry elects to go: "If an update will change the package’s API and hence affect packages depending on it, it is expected that you will contact the maintainers of affected packages and suggest changes, and give them time (at least 2 weeks, ideally more) to prepare updates before submitting your updated package. Do mention in the submission email which packages are affected and that their maintainers have been informed. In order to derive the reverse dependencies of a package including the addresses of maintainers who have to be notified upon changes, the function reverse_dependencies_with_maintainers is available from the developer website." Given the potential extent and impact of the changes being considered, it would seem reasonable to: 1. Post a note to R-Devel (possibly R-Help to cover a larger useR base) regarding whatever changes are finalized and formally announce them. The changes are likely to affect end useRs as well as package maintainers. 2. Send communications directly via e-mail to the relevant package maintainers that have dependencies on survival. 3. Consider a longer deprecation time frame for relevant functions, to raise awareness and allow for changes to be made by package maintainers and useRs as may be apropos. Perhaps post reminders to R-Help at relevant time points in advance as you approach the formal deprecation and release of the updated package. Terry, if you have not used it yet and/or are not aware of it, take a look at ?Deprecated in base: https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/base/html/Deprecated.html which is helpful in setting up a deprecation process. If you Google "deprecating functions in R", there are numerous examples/flows of use and the associated processes, since the help page does not
