[Bioc-devel] Updated check results page
Gordon K Smyth
smyth at wehi.EDU.AU
Sun Nov 13 00:14:45 CET 2005
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:00:25 -0800
> From: Seth Falcon <sfalcon at fhcrc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Bioc-devel Digest, Vol 20, Issue 5
> To: bioc-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch
> On 10 Nov 2005, smyth at wehi.edu.au wrote:
>> Hi Seth and welcome to Herve,
>> Thanks for your work.
>> The new formats look good and I do like the more detailed rmd check
>> output information. As far as I can tell the differences between
>> formats A and B are cosmetic only, results on one line for each
>> package for A vs results in a two-way table for B, so I don't have a
>> preference between these. I guess I like the compactness of format
>> I think you do need to give the check time/date for each machine,
>> unless you can guarantee that the checks on all machines will be
>> precisely simultaneous. This has not been true in the past. This is
>> the same point that Robert was making when he queried just one svn
> In the current setup, all build systems run against the
> same svn rev. The intention is to address the issue of hard to
> interpret and out of sync build reports by forcing all builds to use
> the same inputs --- this is not time dependent.
If that's possible, sounds good.
> If this proves not to be feasible, we will make sure it is clear what
> is being tested for each platform. Avoiding such confusion was a
> primary motivation for the improvements.
>> In my role as probably the eldest English speaker on this list, I
>> have a couple of pedantic language suggestions. Firstly, these are
>> not actually "Cross platform" checks. "Cross platform" would imply
>> that there is somehow a comparison or transference of results
>> between the platforms, whereas the checking is simply undertaken for
>> each platform individually. You could say "Multiple platform
>> build/check reports".
> Or perhaps simply "Platform build/check reports".
Right. Or better, "Package build/check reports" because it's the packages which are being
checked, not the platforms. Or "Bioconductor package build/check reports" to distinguish it from
the equivalent CRAN page.
>> Secondly, on the linking pages it would be better to drop "Daily"
>> from "Daily Check Results" unless the checks really are going to be
>> run every day. Historically they've been run more like once or twice
>> a week.
> Well, OK. Certainly our track record here is not stellar, but the
> intention really is to have the reports run *every* day. Perhaps we
> should drop "daily" until we have demonstrated such reliability.
No, leave it on if that's the intention. Or "nightly" as you say on
> Thanks for the feedback.
> + seth
Thanks for your work.
More information about the Bioc-devel