[R-pkg-devel] DESCRIPTION file corrections for accepted package

[Georgi Boshnakov]

Also, v1.1 = v1.1.0:

>  package_version("1.1.0") > package_version("1.1")
[1] FALSE
>  package_version("1.1.0") == package_version("1.1")
[1] TRUE

If you adopt the 2-digit versions but decide to keep the possibility for 3-letter ones for minor fixes (bugs; fixing CRAN NOTES, minor bugs etc.), always use the four-digit development versions, e.g. 1.1.0.9000 after release of 1.1, to keep the possibility for 1.2 or 1.1.1 for the following release.

Georgi Boshnakov

________________________________________
From: R-package-devel <r-package-devel-bounces using r-project.org> on behalf of Joshua Ulrich <josh.m.ulrich using gmail.com>
Sent: 28 October 2024 15:41
To: Duncan Murdoch
Cc: R Package Development
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] DESCRIPTION file corrections for accepted package

`R CMD check` uses the `package_version()` function to check that the submitted package version is > the version on CRAN. You can use it to check Duncan's hypothesis: R$ # current update with 3-part version R$ package_version("1. 1. 1") >
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From a New External Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please exercise caution when opening links or attachments included in this message.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

`R CMD check` uses the `package_version()` function to check that the
submitted package version is > the version on CRAN. You can use it to
check Duncan's hypothesis:

R$ # current update with 3-part version
R$ package_version("1.1.1") > package_version("1.1")
[1] TRUE
R$ # next update with only a 2-part version
R$ package_version("1.2") > package_version("1.1.1")
[1] TRUE


On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 8:16 AM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think R will enforce a 3 part version just because you used it
> once.  You might have other reasons to try to maintain versioning
> consistency.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> On 2024-10-27 7:48 a.m., Gianmarco Alberti wrote:
> > Dear Duncan,
> >
> > Thank you for the straightforward guidance.
> >
> > My initial query stemmed from a concern about versioning consistency - I
> > thought that once using three digits (1.1.1), I would need to maintain
> > that format (e.g., 1.2.0) in future updates. Your suggestion clarified
> > that I can use 1.1.1 for these formatting changes and still use 1.2 for
> > future substantial updates.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Gm
> >
> >
> > Il giorno dom 27 ott 2024 alle ore 11:49 Duncan Murdoch
> > <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.duncan using gmail.com>> ha scritto:
> >
> >     On 2024-10-27 6:03 a.m., Gianmarco Alberti wrote:
> >      > Dear R Package Developers,
> >      > I am seeking guidance regarding a situation with my package
> >     'chisquare'
> >      > (version 1.1) on CRAN.
> >      >
> >      > Current situation:
> >      >
> >      > 1. The package was submitted and (automatically) accepted to CRAN
> >     (version
> >      > 1.1) after thorough local testing and complete devtools checks
> >      > (check_win_oldrelease(), check_win_release(), check_win_devel())
> >      >
> >      > 2. After acceptance, I received a request to make formatting
> >     changes to the
> >      > DESCRIPTION file by November 2, 2024:
> >      > -Remove version specifications for graphics and stats in Imports
> >      > -Update R version dependency format from R (>= 4.0.0) to R (>= 4.0)
> >      >
> >      > 3. Upon attempting to submit these formatting changes, I received
> >     a warning
> >      > about "Insufficient package version (submitted: 1.1, existing:
> >     1.1)". I am
> >      > well aware that this warning typically indicates the need to
> >     increment the
> >      > version number for new submissions of existing packages, as per CRAN
> >      > policies.
> >      >
> >      > This creates a procedural challenge:
> >      > -I need to make the requested DESCRIPTION file changes to retain
> >     the package
> >      > -The changes are purely formatting-related, not functional (all
> >     checks pass)
> >      > -I cannot submit without changing the version number
> >      > -However, incrementing the version number seems disproportionate for
> >      > formatting changes.
> >      >
> >      > I would greatly appreciate guidance on the proper way to handle this
> >      > situation.
> >      > What is the recommended approach for submitting DESCRIPTION file
> >     formatting
> >      > corrections for an already-accepted package, given that
> >     incrementing the
> >      > version number might seem a bit disproportionate?
> >      >
> >      > Thank you for your time and assistance.
> >
> >     The simplest thing is to just update the version.  Use 1.1.1 if you
> >     don't want to go to 1.2.
> >
> >     Duncan Murdoch
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!DCS7NzQVm5Q1FFruS86zOyiLNBS9_EZ46Qpjb7Ks8TvH80ChDrXf8l5x94KXWZtPgoOExpq8805sRyJ_Zz_aNn7qkCwbNu8XZ0yf$[stat[.]ethz[.]ch]



--
Joshua Ulrich  |  about.me/joshuaulrich
FOSS Trading  |  https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fosstrading.com__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!DCS7NzQVm5Q1FFruS86zOyiLNBS9_EZ46Qpjb7Ks8TvH80ChDrXf8l5x94KXWZtPgoOExpq8805sRyJ_Zz_aNn7qkCwbNgL0eU2t$[fosstrading[.]com]

______________________________________________
R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!DCS7NzQVm5Q1FFruS86zOyiLNBS9_EZ46Qpjb7Ks8TvH80ChDrXf8l5x94KXWZtPgoOExpq8805sRyJ_Zz_aNn7qkCwbNu8XZ0yf$[stat[.]ethz[.]ch]