[Rcpp-devel] Please help in testing what will be Rcpp 1.0.5

[Avraham Adler]

R Under development (unstable) (2020-06-07 r78653)
Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)
Running under: Windows 10 x64 (build 18362)

It's R 4.0.1 using Jeroen rtools40 scripts on Win 10 64bit.

1513 OK, not sure why sessionInfo() went nuts though per below. Restarting
R worked to provide the session info above.


[1] "All ok, 1513 results"
Warning message:
In dir.create("templib") : 'templib' already exists
> sessionInfo()
Error: $ operator is invalid for atomic vectors
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In FUN(X[[i]], ...) :
  DESCRIPTION file of package 'foo' is missing or broken
2: In FUN(X[[i]], ...) :
  DESCRIPTION file of package 'fooModule' is missing or broken

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:47 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Below is an ascii version of what I blogged yesterday, proper URL links are
> at   http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/blog/2020/06/15#rcpp_1.0.5_testing
>
> Help in testing, particular on unusual hardware or compiler choices, or
> particularly old releases of OS, compiler, R, ... would be welcome. I am
> quite confident the release will be fine on CRAN and standard systems.
>
> But for use on less standard setups, the time to test is now. If you are a
> user of Rcpp under such circumstance, please help now in testing and
> reporting issues, if any are seen.
>
> Thanks,  Dirk
>
>
>   Mon, 15 Jun 2020
>
>   Rcpp 1.0.5 in two+ weeks: Please help test
>
>    rcpp logo
>
>    With the current four-month release cycle, the next Rcpp release is due
> in
>    July following the 1.0.4 release in March. Just prior to the 1.0.4
> release
>    I had asked this:
>
>      It would be particularly beneficial if those with “unsual” build
>      dependencies tested it as we would increase overall coverage beyond
> what
>      I get from testing against 1800+ CRAN packages. BioConductor would
> also
>      be welcome.
>
>    but only on the rcpp-devel list, and only about a good week prior to the
>    release.
>
>    I remain rather disappointed and disillusioned about what happened after
>    1.0.4 was released. Two PRs in that release were soon seen to have side
>    effects on more ‘marginal’ test systems, precisely what added testing
>    could have revealed. An additional issue arose from changes in R’s make
>    system, which is harder to anticipate or test. Each and every infelicity
>    was fixed within a day or so, and we always make candidate releases
>    available—the current Rcpp as of this writing is 1.0.4.12 meaning twelve
>    microreleases were made since 1.0.4. And those microreleases are always
>    available for normal download and install.packages use via the Rcpp drat
>    repository accessible to all. So it was truly troubling to see some,
>    especially those with experience in setting up or running testing / ci
>    platforms, pretend to be unable to access, install, and provide these
> for
>    their own tests, or the tests of their users. It just doesn’t pass a
> basic
>    logic test: it takes a single call to install.packages(), or, even more
>    easily, a single assignment of an auxiliary repo. All told this was a
>    rather sad experience.
>
>    So let’s try to not repeat this. If you, or maybe users of a build or ci
>    system you maintain, rely on Rcpp, and especially if you do so on
> systems
>    outside the standard CRAN grid of three OSs and the triplet of
> “previous,
>    current, next” releases of R, then please help by testing. I maitain
> these
>    release as a volunteer, unpaid at that, and I simply cannot expand to
> more
>    systesm. We take reverse dependency check seriously (and I just run two
>    taking about a day each) but if you insist on building on stranger
>    hardware or much older releases it will be up to you to ensure Rcpp
>    passes. We prep for CRAN, and try our best to pass at CRAN. For nearly a
>    dozen years.
>
>    To install the current microrelease from the Rcpp drat repository, just
> do
>
>  install.packages("Rcpp", repos="https://rcppcore.github.io/drat")
>
>    That is all there is to it. You could even add the Rcpp drat repository
> to
>    your repository list.
>
>    Rcpp has become successful because so many people help with suggestions,
>    documentation, and code. It is used by (as of today) 1958 CRAN packages,
>    205 BioConductor packages, and downloaded around a million times per
>    month. So if you can, please help now with some more testing.
>
>    If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me
> at
>    GitHub. For the first year, GitHub will match your contributions.
>
>    This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box
>    blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit
>    settings.
>
>                                                   /code/rcpp | permanent
> link
>
>
>
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
> _______________________________________________
> Rcpp-devel mailing list
> Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20200616/e734310b/attachment-0001.html>