[Roxygen-devel] roxygen3

[Vitalie Spinu]

  >> Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu>
  >> on Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:16:31 -0500 wrote:

  >> Could you *please* talk to some actual computer scientists and at least
  >> consider calling it roxygen version 3.0 or roxygen2 version 3.0 instead of
  >> releasing a new package name every time you feel the need to refactor the
  >> code?  It is commonly understood that major version numbers may break
  >> backwards compatibility... no need to needlessly break the package name too.

  > I don't think you understand the reality of the R package management
  > system. Most people will run update.packages() and get new versions of
  > all packages. If a package has API breaking changes then it will cause
  > considerable frustration, especially given how difficult it is to
  > install a previous version of a package.

May be it's time to revert to "roxygen" name? 

Roxygen is not required by any other package; so no dependence
problems. Also if user interface is not changed, and only internals are
refactored, then there is no need for a new name, is it?

Another option would be to release a new "old" package like
"roxygen_old", "ggplot_old" etc. Then people can just use the old one
with minimal inconvenience. The problem with this, is that there might
be papers/books published with the old command interface, but people
understand that, so not a big deal anyways.

        Vitalie