Re: [R-pkg-devel] Etiquette for package submissions that do not automatically pass checks?

2020-08-17 Thread Ivan Krylov
Dear Cesko, On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 21:08:55 +0200 Cesko Voeten wrote: > The package contains functionality to run on cluster nodes that were > set up by the user and needs to access its own internal functions > from there. Apologies for derailing the thread, but I had a similar problem a few

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Etiquette for package submissions that do not automatically pass checks?

2020-08-15 Thread Cesko Voeten
Duncan, Joshua, Thanks for the feedback. I had indeed forgotten to increment the version number, so that may explain it. I'll give it until a few days after the 24th, and then just resubmit with a new version number. Also, thanks for introducing me to the foghorn package, I wasn't aware of it

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Etiquette for package submissions that do not automatically pass checks?

2020-08-14 Thread Joshua Ulrich
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:54 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > On 14/08/2020 3:08 p.m., Cesko Voeten wrote: > > A while ago, I submitted an update to my package 'buildmer' that does not > > pass R CMD check. This is deliberate. The package contains functionality to > > run on cluster nodes that were

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Etiquette for package submissions that do not automatically pass checks?

2020-08-14 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 14/08/2020 3:08 p.m., Cesko Voeten wrote: A while ago, I submitted an update to my package 'buildmer' that does not pass R CMD check. This is deliberate. The package contains functionality to run on cluster nodes that were set up by the user and needs to access its own internal functions