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

2020-08-18 Thread Voeten, C.C.
Dear Ivan, > Apologies for derailing the thread, but I had a similar problem a few > months ago [*], found what looks like a different solution but did not > have time to investigate it further. > > Given that serialize() does not send package namespaces over the wire > [**], why would it be a

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

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

2020-08-14 Thread Cesko Voeten
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 from there. In previous versions of the