[R-pkg-devel] What constitutes insufficient merit of an r package?
bbo|ker @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Thu Apr 25 18:56:26 CEST 2019
I don't think this can actually be answered except by CRAN
maintainers, and I would guess they will use the US Supreme Court's
definition of obscenity
I would guess that this would be used to turn down packages of
interest to a very narrow group of users ("me and the two people
working on this project"), or with only a small number of functions
whose functionality replicates base-R functions (or small/obvious
wrappers around base-R functions), or functions from an existing
I agree that it would be interesting to have examples of packages that
had been turned down for lack of novelty.
* from Wikipedia:
In 1981 Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about
coining the phrase. "In a way I regret having said what I said about
obscenity—that's going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of
the other solid words I've written," he said, "I regret a little bit
that if I'll be remembered at all I'll be remembered for that
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jarrett Phillips
<phillipsjarrett1 using gmail.com> wrote:
> When submitting a package to the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN),
> one requirement for eventual acceptance is novelty of the package and its
> workings (i.e., functions, etc.).
> That is, a package's contribution cannot be trivial.
> The flowchart found here explains things pictorially:
> Many R packages contain functions found in other packages. These functions
> are not necessarily distinct from those in older R packages.
> *What then is meant by 'sufficient merit' of an incoming R package?*
> I realize this question is likely to be opinion-based, but it is one that
> grabbed my attention nonetheless.
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-package-devel