Re: [R] Rating R Helpers

From: Ben Bolker <bolker_at_ufl.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:32:45 -0800 (PST)

S Ellison wrote:
>
> Package review is a nice idea. But you raise a worrying point.
> Are any of the 'downright dangerous' packages on CRAN?
> If so, er... why?
>
>

>>>> <Bill.Venables_at_csiro.au> 12/01/07 7:21 AM >>>
>>I think the need for this is rather urgent, in fact.  Most packages are
>>very good, but I regret to say some are pretty inefficient and others
>>downright dangerous.

>
>

Presumably because the primary requirement for packages being accepted on CRAN is that they pass "R CMD check". This is a fine minimum standard -- it means that packages will definitely install -- but there's nothing to stop anyone posting a package full of statistical nonsense to CRAN, as far as I know. I'm _not_ suggesting that R-core should take up this challenge, but this is where ratings come in.

  Ben Bolker

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Rating-R-Helpers-tf4925550.html#a14163486
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

______________________________________________
R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Received on Wed 05 Dec 2007 - 01:36:45 GMT

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 05 Dec 2007 - 06:30:17 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.