[R-pkg-devel] CRAN pending status , left up in the air

On 2020-10-19 10:34, Rafael H. M. Pereira wrote:

Thank you? Dirk and Hugo for your responses. I guess I'll just have to be
patient and wait.

I can only imagine how the CRAN team is overwhelmed by the exponential
growth of package submissions. I wonder, though, whether the CRAN
maintainers and the R community more broadly are thinking about
alternatives to deal with such growing demand without compromising the
speed and consistency/quality of package development. Expanding the 
team of
CRAN maintainers would be the most obvious solution but I confess I'm not
familiar enough with the whole process to assess what would be the best
routes of action to tackle this bottleneck.

 ????? From my experience, it looks to me like their primary approach to 
handling the increased volume has been to improve automation.? In the 
spirit of brainstorming, I'd like to share other ideas on this:


MAKE IT EASY FOR A USER TO CHECK A DIFF FILE OF "Writing R Extensions" 
COMPARING THE CURRENT VERSION WITH ANY PREVIOUS ONE.


 ????? For example, every article on Wikipedia has a "View History" tab. 
That lists the dates of all the revisions with a terse summary of what 
was changed in each.? I can click on any two and then click "Compare" to 
see all the changes in that period.


 ????? I'm not going to reread every word of "Writing R Extensions" 
every time I submit something to CRAN.? However, I would be willing to 
review a diff file if it were easy for me to do that.? (And I'm NOT 
going to create my own private file copy of "Writing R Extensions" and 
manually create such a diff file.)


IMPROVE THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CRAN TEAM AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION 
OF HOW TO PREPARE A PACKAGE FOR CRAN


 ????? I know two sources of information on that:


 ??????????? * Wickham and Bryan, R Packages (https://r-pkgs.org).? I 
created a "cran-comments.md" file based on their recommendations, and 
missed their comment that it should be in ".Rbuildignore".? My latest 
CRAN submission was rejected partly because of that.


 ??????????? * Colin Fay, "Preparing your package for a CRAN submission" 
(https://github.com/ThinkR-open/prepare-for-cran).? These instructions 
follow Wickham and Bryan in recommending "devtools::revdep_check()". 
Sadly, "revdep_check" is not currently in devtools but in a package 
called revdepcheck.? Worse, that package is not available on CRAN and 
appears twice on GitHub.? The original by bbolker has not been updated 
in 5 years.? The version that is currently maintained is 
"https://github.com/r-lib/revdepcheck".? Fortunately, Hadley Wickham is 
the leading contributor to the latter, so writing him may help correct 
that infelicity, but I should also write to Colin Fay.


CRAN REVIEW GROUPS:? There are now 41 different "CRAN Task Views".? We 
could ask the maintainer of each Task View to try to recruit a committee 
around each one to discuss coverage and integration.? Each committee 
could be asked to coordinate via email and in virtual meetings.? They 
could be asked to pick 3 standard times for their virtual meetings, so 
anyone in the world would not always be excluded from a meeting that was 
3 AM their time.? Each package maintainer would be asked to specify at 
least one "Task View" for each package and be willing to discuss 
overlap, etc., with others.? This might be a topic for the next useR 
conference.


 ????? Comments?
 ????? Best Wishes,
 ????? Spencer Graves

best

Rafael H M Pereira

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:46 AM Hugo Gruson 
<hugo.gruson+R at normalesup.org>
wrote:

Hi all,

this is a bit tricky since the documentation on the dashboard comes from
an official, authoritative, source: the R journal [1].

"pending: if a decision is pending a response from the package
maintainer: If an additional issue was present in the package that we
cannot check for in the incoming checks (such as the BLAS issues
mentioned in the section above), the maintainer is automatically asked
whether these issues have been fixed. Same is true for change of
maintainer (or maintainer's mail address) where the old maintainer (old
address) is automatically asked to confirm the maintainer change. The
answers have to be processed manually."

As Dirk explains and as reported in
https://github.com/lockedata/cransays/issues/29, it is likely not true
anymore but in the absence of further official information, it is
difficult to issue a fix.

A later issue of the R journal [2] introduces the "waiting" and
"newbies" categories but does not expand on the new role of "pending".

Best,

Hugo

[1]: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018-1/cran.pdf
[2]: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2019-1/cran.pdf

On 19/10/2020 02:18, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

On 18 October 2020 at 20:56, Rafael H. M. Pereira wrote:
| The CRAN incoming Dashboard indicates that the status of my package

(r5r)

| is "pending", which means 'the CRAN maintainers are waiting for an

action

| on your side. You should check your emails!'.

AFAICT the text there is wrong: it corresponds to state 'waiting' as
'pending' means CRAN is pondering the state of the package.

Your package has only been there for three (mostly weekend) days 
which is
nothing. I have one 'waiting' for five days now and it is simply

(AFAICT) a

false positive. Plus, it had already been delayed by a spurious

compilation

error on their end before that so the total is well over a week now. 
Very
frustrating.? But there is exactly zero you or I can do about it.

| However, I haven't received any email with guidance on how to 
proceed.

Is

| there any CRAN webpage to check the latest check results and get a

sense of

| what I should be doing?

No.

I can only suggest to trust official documentation (Writing R 
Extensions,
CRAN Repository Policy) more. Asking here is also better than guessing.

Dirk

????[[alternative HTML version deleted]]