On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Steffen Neumann
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 11:47 -0400, James W. MacDonald wrote:
>>> Not that I can recall. But I do agree that it is at minimum redundant
>>> and proba
Hi Steffen,
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Steffen Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 11:47 -0400, James W. MacDonald wrote:
>> Not that I can recall. But I do agree that it is at minimum redundant
>> and probably just wrong to have R-version requirements for BioC packages.
>
> I
Hi,
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 11:47 -0400, James W. MacDonald wrote:
> Not that I can recall. But I do agree that it is at minimum redundant
> and probably just wrong to have R-version requirements for BioC packages.
I'd like to disagree. BioC *promises* that stuff works together
at a certain point
Not that I can recall. But I do agree that it is at minimum redundant
and probably just wrong to have R-version requirements for BioC packages.
And seriously? 500 packages? I find that surprising.
Best,
Jim
On 5/21/2013 11:38 AM, Martin Morgan wrote:
Pulling this over to Bioc-devel. It's temp
Pulling this over to Bioc-devel. It's tempting to strip this from the
DESCRIPTION files of the ~500 packages that include it. It's not useful in the
context of the Bioconductor release schedule, and makes a forward promise that
cannot be guaranteed.
Is this something that has come up before?
