[Rd] one thing to check

[Spencer Graves]

	  Please excuse:  I did NOT intend to send this to R-Devel at this 
time.  I was suggesting to Jim Ramsay a question we MIGHT want to pose 
to R-Devel.  (I've since decided we probably won't need to.)


	  Spencer


On 2020-11-10 07:58, Spencer Graves wrote:
> Hi, Jim:
> 
> 
>        Could you please look at svd2.Rd and see what it says?  It may 
> give an example, where it gave a better answer than svd -- i.e., a 
> marginal case, where svd2 honestly gave a better answer than svd.
> 
> 
>        If we find -- either in svd2.Rd or in one of the revdepchecks -- 
> an example where svd2 gives a demonstrably different answer, we need to 
> consider what to do about that.
> 
> 
>              1.  Is the different answer demonstrably better?  If yes, 
> can we fix it without LINPACK?  If yes, do that.  If no, we document 
> those concerns, send them to R-Devel <r-devel using r-project.org>, and retain 
> svd2 in fda and keep its use as it was.  Then R-Devel can deal with the 
> problem however they want, and it won't affect fda -- at least not right 
> now.
> 
> 
>              2.  Does the different answer break something in 
> revdepcheck because of a cosmetic problem?  If yes, try to communicate 
> that issue with the maintainer(s) of the package(s) that would be 
> affected by such a change.  I suggest you send them tell then that svd2 
> is now deprecated -- AND mark svd2.Rd with such a message -- while also 
> sending them code for the function(s) they call that give them an error 
> message, and tell them that you plan to remove svd2 from the next 
> release, and ask them to fix that so a revdepcheck with that new code 
> won't be flagged as an error.  AND ask them to notify you when they have 
> a version on CRAN that works with your new code.
> 
> 
>              3.  If the new code gives a different answer that doesn't 
> seem better in at least one example AND deleting svd2 doesn't break 
> anything in revdepcheck, then delete it.
> 
> 
>              4.  If you still need to retain svd2 because of a 
> revdepcheck problem, I'd also document that in "cran-comments.md".
> 
> 
>        What do you think?
>        spencer
> 
> 
> On 2020-11-10 07:10, James Ramsay wrote:
>> Hi Spencer,
>>
>> One thing I’d like check with you:
>>
>> I removed svd2 because CRAN indicated that LINPACK had been 
>> deprecated.  I replaced calls to svd2 with svd in geigen and CSTRfn.
>>
>> This could be the issue with the two broken codes … or not.  But what 
>> is your view about using svd instead of svd2, and do you have an idea 
>> of what to do about the LINPACK calls?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel