[Rd] The case for freezing CRAN

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 21 March 2014 at 07:43, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. wrote:
| This has been a fascinating discussion.

I am not so sure. Seems more like rehashing of old and known arguments, while
some folks try to push their work (Hi Jeroen :) onto already overloaded
others.  The only real thing I learned so far is that Philippe is busy
earning publication credits along the line 'damn, just go and test it'
suggestion I made (somewhat flippantly) in my last email.

| I maintain the survival package which currently has 246 reverse dependencies and take a 
| slightly different view, which could be described as "the price of fame".  I feel a 
| responsiblity to not break R.  I have automated scripts which download the latest copy of 
| all 246, using the install-tests option, and run them all. Most updates have 1-3 issues.  

Same here, but as a somewhat younger package Rcpp is so far "only" at 189 and
counting, with pretty decent growth.  My experience has been positive too,
and CRAN appears appreciative for us doing preemptive work and trying to be
careful about not introducing breaking changes.  I too see the latter part as
something we owe the users of our package: a "promise" not to mess with the
interface unless we absolutely must.   

| but also worth it.  I've built the test scripts over several years, with help from several 
| others; a place to share this information would be a useful addition.

I put my script on GitHub next to Rcpp itself, turns out that another thread
participant just a need for exactly that script yesterday.

Dirk

-- 
Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com