Option "installWithVers" seems to impact new.packages() badly?
Please grow up, Brian. If you want to side track the issue, why don't you wait for Robert, etc, to answer? Are you pissed at that particular change, so that if anyone brings up a problem with it, and who might happen to have had a conversation with them once or twice, that you will jump on them? Or do you need to enlighten me on your perceptions of my failings on my part for not knowing what everyone I know is doing and whether what they are doing is correct? Gosh almightly. Right now, as has been true for nearly a year now, my time with R is strictly a hobby, as is any little time I might spend on BioC. Thankfully, Luke's ancient Common LispStat works on SBCL. Hobbys are for enjoyment, and given the berating I've just gotten on the two questions, it's almost enough to make the switch complete. If you want to report issues about ash, feel free to. That wasn't the issue I reported on. I reported on two, we've solved one, and I've had a snide clueless remark and a rather tactless remark on the other. best, -tony
On 10/4/05, Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
Please don't mangle replies like this to make them unreadable. Peter's comment is spot-on. The request for versioned installs and the original code came from the BioC team via Robert Gentleman. I presume it was a deliberate choice that a versioned install of 'ash' is reported as an installation of 'ash_1.0-9', not 'ash', and I was referring you to the authors (and RG was one and will know who else was involved, as I recall at least Jeff Gentry) as to their intentions. On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, A.J. Rossini wrote:
On 04 Oct 2005 16:42:14 +0200, Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk> wrote:
The issue is that installed.packages() has never been taught about> > > > versioned installs, and you might like to take that up with your BioC> > > > colleagues who added the idea.> >> "A.J. Rossini" <blindglobe at gmail.com> writes:> > Also, I don't know what this has to do with BioC. This is core R, so> > pertinent to this list. Otherwise, perhaps it should be taken out?>> Brian can of course speak for himself, but I think his point was just> that the request for the feature came from BioC, not that the> discussion was on the wrong list.
But what the heck did that have to do with anything? Should I bemaking comments to Brian about Peter Donnelly or Jotun Hein if I'vegot comments about their work just because he's at Oxford? Irrelevant network connections are irrelevant, and the comment aboutBioC made no sense whatsoever to me. best,-tony blindglobe at gmail.comMuttenz, Switzerland."Commit early,commit often, and commit in a repository from which we can easilyroll-back your mistakes" (AJR, 4Jan05).
-- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
-- best, -tony blindglobe at gmail.com Muttenz, Switzerland. "Commit early,commit often, and commit in a repository from which we can easily roll-back your mistakes" (AJR, 4Jan05).