[R-pkg-devel] new version jumps in minor?

[Iris Simmons]

The auto checker will publish an R package that has Status: OK and no
Note_to_CRAN_maintainers.

The auto checker will reject an R package that has WARNINGs and/or ERRORS.

The auto checker will flag an R package for manual inspection otherwise. A
CRAN team member will see your NOTE and know it's nothing to worry about
and publish it anyway. I've had similar before, and I've waited at most 5
hours for someone to check and approve it.

On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 14:29 Toby Hocking <tdhock5 using gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought that the auto-check robot only accepts submissions which
> have Status: OK? (no NOTEs at all)
> Is it documented somewhere which NOTEs are allowed by the auto-check
> service?
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:10 AM Uwe Ligges
> <ligges using statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote:
> >
> > CRAN does not object to these versioning, the notes are not the reason
> > for rejection. Who told they are?
> >
> > Best,
> > Uwe Ligges
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05.11.2024 01:02, Josiah Parry wrote:
> > > Rolf,
> > >
> > > The versioning method they’re using is referred to as CalVer
> > > https://calver.org/ (not as catchy as SemVer) and it is actually quite
> > > useful! With one look at the version you can get a good sense of it’s
> > > general release date.
> > >
> > > Posit, for example, moved their professional products to use this
> > > versioning method a number of years ago.
> > >
> > > I wouldn’t poopoo it so quickly!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 15:32 Rolf Turner <rolfturner using posteo.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:33:40 -0500
> > >> Toby Hocking <tdhock5 using gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <SNIP>
> > >>
> > >>> Version jumps in minor (submitted: 2024.11.2, existing: 2024.1.24)
> > >>
> > >> It looks to me that you are setting your version numbers in an
> > >> unorthodox manner, which could/will confuse the living Drambuie out of
> > >> people.
> > >>
> > >> I conjecture that you are setting your version number to represent the
> > >> relevant date.  E.g. 2024.11.2  means 2 November, 2024 and 2024.1.24
> > >> means 24 January 2024.
> > >>
> > >> In my understanding, the usual convention is for the version number to
> > >> be of the form l.m.n (or l.m-n) --- major.minor.patch (or
> > >> major.minor-patch).  The date should be specified in the *Date* field
> of
> > >> the DESCRIPTION file.
> > >>
> > >> It probably does not matter a hell of a lot.  "Writing R Extensions"
> > >> just says that the version number should be "a sequence of at least
> two
> > >> (and usually three) non-negative integers separated by single ‘.’ or
> > >> ‘-’ characters".
> > >>
> > >> However you might save yourself some "NOTEs" by adhering to the
> > >> "l.m.n" convention and incrementing the components sequentially.
> > >>
> > >> cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Rolf Turner
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Honorary Research Fellow
> > >> Department of Statistics
> > >> University of Auckland
> > >> Stats. Dep't. (secretaries) phone:
> > >>           +64-9-373-7599 ext. 89622
> > >> Home phone: +64-9-480-4619
> > >>
> > >> ______________________________________________
> > >> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> > >>
> > >
> > >       [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]