Re: [Rd] CRAN policies

From: Jeffrey Ryan <>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:33:14 -0500

Thanks Uwe for the clarification on what goes and what stays.

Still fuzzy on the notion of "significant" though. Do you have an example or two for the list?


I meant to also thank all of CRAN volunteers for the momentous efforts involved, and it is nice to see some explanation of how we can help, as well as a peek into what goes on 'behind the curtain' ;-)

On 3/27/12 1:19 PM, "Uwe Ligges" <> wrote:


>On 27.03.2012 19:10, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
>> Is there a distinction as to NOTE vs. WARNING that is documented? I've
>> always assumed (wrongly?) that NOTES weren't an issue with publishing on
>> CRAN, but that they may change to WARNINGS at some point.
>We won't kick packages off CRAN for Notes (but we will if Warnings are
>not fixed), but we may not accept new submissions with significant Notes.
>Uwe Ligges
>> Is the process by which this happens documented somewhere?
>> Jeff
>> On 3/27/12 11:09 AM, "Gabor Grothendieck"<>
>>> 2012/3/27 Uwe Ligges<>:
>>>> On 27.03.2012 17:09, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> CRAN has for some time had a policies page at
>>>>>> and we would like to draw this to the attention of package
>>>>>> maintainers.
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> particular, please
>>>>>> - always send a submission email to with the
>>>>>> package
>>>>>> name and version on the subject line. Emails sent to individual
>>>>>> members
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the team will result in delays at best.
>>>>>> - run R CMD check --as-cran on the tarball before you submit it. Do
>>>>>> this with the latest version of R possible: definitely R 2.14.2,
>>>>>> preferably R 2.15.0 RC or a recent R-devel. (Later versions of R
>>>>>> able to give better diagnostics, e.g. for compiled code and
>>>>>> on Windows. They may also have extra checks for recently uncovered
>>>>>> problems.)
>>>>>> Also, please note that CRAN has a very heavy workload (186 packages
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> published last week) and to remain viable needs package maintainers
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> its life as easy as possible.
>>>>> Regarding the part about "warnings or significant notes" in that
>>>>> its impossible to know which notes are significant and which ones are
>>>>> not significant except by trial and error.
>>>> Right, it needs human inspection to identify false positives. We
>>>> most package maintainers are able to see if he or she is hit by such a
>>>> false
>>>> positive.
>>> The problem is that a note is generated and the note is correct. Its
>>> not a false positive. But that does not tell you whether its
>>> "significant" or not. There is no way to know. One can either try to
>>> remove all notes (which may not be feasible) or just upload it and by
>>> trial and error find out if its accepted or not.
>>> --
>>> Statistics& Software Consulting
>>> GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
>>> tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
>>> email: ggrothendieck at
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> mailing list
>> mailing list Received on Tue 27 Mar 2012 - 18:35:06 GMT

This quarter's messages: by month, or sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

All messages

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Wed 28 Mar 2012 - 14:15:36 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive