At 01:50 PM 11/11/2005, bioc-devel-request at stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:09:20 -0800 From: Seth Falcon <sfalcon at fhcrc.org> Subject: [Bioc-devel] Updated check results page To: bioc-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch Hi All, First off, I would like to introduce Herve Pages, a new member of our group here in Seattle. Herve has been working on some improvements to the package build/check system including a face-lift for the check results page. Our goal is a more reliable build system with results that are easier for you as package developers to use. Please have a look at the two proposed report formats and tell us what you think. http://www.bioconductor.org/checkResults/checkResults.html Best Wishes, + seth
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 A. 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 value. 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". 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. Cheers Gordon