R CMD check should check date in description

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R CMD check should check date in description

hadley wickham
I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?

Hadley

--
http://had.co.nz/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Kurt Hornik
>>>>> hadley wickham writes:

> I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
> possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?

I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.

* How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
  package was uploaded to a repository?

* Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
  reasons ...

* What we currently say in R-exts is

     The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
     version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
     yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.

  Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
  sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.

The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
field if there was none.

Best
-k



> Hadley

> --
> http://had.co.nz/

> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Douglas Bates-2
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kurt Hornik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>
>  > I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
>  > possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
>
>  I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>
>  * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>   package was uploaded to a repository?
>
>  * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>   reasons ...
>
>  * What we currently say in R-exts is
>
>      The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>      version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>      yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>
>   Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>   sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>
>  The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>  field if there was none.

I agree.  I think that the Date field in the DESCRIPTION file should
reflect the date and time zone at which the package was built or some
other date of the package maintainer's choice.

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

hadley wickham
In reply to this post by Kurt Hornik
>  I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>
>  * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>   package was uploaded to a repository?
>
>  * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>   reasons ...
>
>  * What we currently say in R-exts is
>
>      The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>      version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>      yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>
>   Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>   sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>
>  The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>  field if there was none.

That sounds like a good solution to me.  Otherwise, maybe just a
message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like failing the codetools
checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should be doing it
consciously, not by mistake.

Hadley


--
http://had.co.nz/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Gabor Grothendieck
I think its somewhat inspiring to be able to get R CMD check to the
point that there are no warnings so having a situation where a warning
is ok would interfere with that.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM, hadley wickham <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >  I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
> >
> >  * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
> >   package was uploaded to a repository?
> >
> >  * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
> >   reasons ...
> >
> >  * What we currently say in R-exts is
> >
> >      The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
> >      version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
> >      yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
> >
> >   Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
> >   sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
> >
> >  The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
> >  field if there was none.
>
> That sounds like a good solution to me.  Otherwise, maybe just a
> message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like failing the codetools
> checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should be doing it
> consciously, not by mistake.
>
>
> Hadley
>
>
> --
> http://had.co.nz/
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Kurt Hornik
In reply to this post by hadley wickham
>>>>> hadley wickham writes:

>> I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>>
>> * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>> package was uploaded to a repository?
>>
>> * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>> reasons ...
>>
>> * What we currently say in R-exts is
>>
>> The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>> version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>> yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>>
>> Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>> sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>>
>> The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>> field if there was none.

> That sounds like a good solution to me.

Ok.  However, 2.7.0 feature freeze soon ...

> Otherwise, maybe just a message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like
> failing the codetools checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should
> be doing it consciously, not by mistake.

I am working on that, too (e.g. a simple NOTE in case the date spec
cannot be canonicalized, etc.).  If file time stamps were realiable, we
could compare these to the given date.  This is I guess all we can do
for e.g. CRAN's daily checking (where comparing to the date the check
is run is not too useful) ...

Best
-k

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Roger D. Peng
In reply to this post by Kurt Hornik
I don't think having 'R CMD check' spit out a warning about the date would be
all that productive.  I do think it would be nice to have 'R CMD build' add a
Date: field to the DESCRIPTION file if there isn't already a Date: field.  And I
think such an addition would solve the first problem since maintainers wouldn't
have to bother maintaining a date field.

-roger

Kurt Hornik wrote:

>>>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>
>> I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
>> possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
>
> I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>
> * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>   package was uploaded to a repository?
>
> * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>   reasons ...
>
> * What we currently say in R-exts is
>
>      The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>      version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>      yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>
>   Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>   sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>
> The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
> field if there was none.
>
> Best
> -k
>
>
>
>> Hadley
>
>> --
>> http://had.co.nz/
>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

--
Roger D. Peng  |  http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo
I agree.
It sounds odd to explicitely ask someone to set the 'Date:' field and
then worring because it doesn't match your precise expectation that it
should equal the build time.

A.F.


2008/4/4, Roger D. Peng <[hidden email]>:

> I don't think having 'R CMD check' spit out a warning about the date would be
>  all that productive.  I do think it would be nice to have 'R CMD build' add a
>  Date: field to the DESCRIPTION file if there isn't already a Date: field.  And I
>  think such an addition would solve the first problem since maintainers wouldn't
>  have to bother maintaining a date field.
>
>  -roger
>
>
>  Kurt Hornik wrote:
>  >>>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>  >
>  >> I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
>  >> possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
>  >
>
> > I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>  >
>  > * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>  >   package was uploaded to a repository?
>  >
>  > * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>  >   reasons ...
>  >
>  > * What we currently say in R-exts is
>  >
>  >      The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>  >      version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>  >      yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>  >
>  >   Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>  >   sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>  >
>  > The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>  > field if there was none.
>  >
>
> > Best
>  > -k
>
> >
>  >
>  >
>  >> Hadley
>  >
>  >> --
>  >> http://had.co.nz/
>  >
>  >> ______________________________________________
>
> >> [hidden email] mailing list
>  >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>  >
>  > ______________________________________________
>  > [hidden email] mailing list
>  > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>  >
>
>
> --
>  Roger D. Peng  |  http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/
>
>
>  ______________________________________________
>  [hidden email] mailing list
>  https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>


--
Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo
Ph.D. student at
Department of Statistical Sciences
University of Bologna, Italy

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Dirk Eddelbuettel
In reply to this post by hadley wickham

On 4 April 2008 at 14:05, hadley wickham wrote:
| I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
| possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?

As I mentioned to Hadley in private mail, a version control system can update
a field like $Date$ or $LastChangedDate$ automagically on writes or
checkins. I use that as I also tend to forget to update the field manually.
For SVN one must set one of the arcane propset fields.

Hth, Dirk

--
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Robert Gentleman
In reply to this post by Kurt Hornik


Kurt Hornik wrote:

>>>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>
>>> I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>>>
>>> * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>>> package was uploaded to a repository?
>>>
>>> * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>>> reasons ...
>>>
>>> * What we currently say in R-exts is
>>>
>>> The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>>> version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>>> yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>>>
>>> Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>>> sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>>>
>>> The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>>> field if there was none.
>
>> That sounds like a good solution to me.
>
> Ok.  However, 2.7.0 feature freeze soon ...

   Please no.  If people want one then they should add it manually. It
is optional, and some of us have explicitly opted out and would like to
continue to do so.


>
>> Otherwise, maybe just a message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like
>> failing the codetools checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should
>> be doing it consciously, not by mistake.
>
> I am working on that, too (e.g. a simple NOTE in case the date spec
> cannot be canonicalized, etc.).  If file time stamps were realiable, we
> could compare these to the given date.  This is I guess all we can do
> for e.g. CRAN's daily checking (where comparing to the date the check
> is run is not too useful) ...

   But definitely not a warning.

   Robert

>
> Best
> -k
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

--
Robert Gentleman, PhD
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876
PO Box 19024
Seattle, Washington 98109-1024
206-667-7700
[hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

hadley wickham
>   Please no.  If people want one then they should add it manually. It is
> optional, and some of us have explicitly opted out and would like to
> continue to do so.

To clarify, do you mean you have decided not to provide a date field
in the DESCRIPTION file?  If so, would you mind elaborating why?

Hadley

--
http://had.co.nz/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Roger D. Peng
In reply to this post by Robert Gentleman
Actually, now that I think about it, 'R CMD build' already adds the 'Packaged:'
field, so perhaps it wouldn't really make sense to add yet another field with
exactly the same information....

-roger

Robert Gentleman wrote:

>
> Kurt Hornik wrote:
>>>>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>>>> I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>>>>
>>>> * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>>>> package was uploaded to a repository?
>>>>
>>>> * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>>>> reasons ...
>>>>
>>>> * What we currently say in R-exts is
>>>>
>>>> The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>>>> version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>>>> yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>>>>
>>>> Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>>>> sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>>>>
>>>> The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>>>> field if there was none.
>>> That sounds like a good solution to me.
>> Ok.  However, 2.7.0 feature freeze soon ...
>
>    Please no.  If people want one then they should add it manually. It
> is optional, and some of us have explicitly opted out and would like to
> continue to do so.
>
>
>>> Otherwise, maybe just a message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like
>>> failing the codetools checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should
>>> be doing it consciously, not by mistake.
>> I am working on that, too (e.g. a simple NOTE in case the date spec
>> cannot be canonicalized, etc.).  If file time stamps were realiable, we
>> could compare these to the given date.  This is I guess all we can do
>> for e.g. CRAN's daily checking (where comparing to the date the check
>> is run is not too useful) ...
>
>    But definitely not a warning.
>
>    Robert
>
>> Best
>> -k
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>

--
Roger D. Peng  |  http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Spencer Graves
In reply to this post by Dirk Eddelbuettel
      What do you think about adding this to section 1.1.1 of "Writing R
Extensions", something like the following, between the paragraphs on
"The 'package' and 'version' fields" and "The 'License' field:


      The optional 'Date' field can be either a fixed date (preferably
in the yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard) or as "Date:  
$Date$" or "Date:  $LastChangedDate$" so this field caries the package
build date or last changed date, respectively.


      Spencer

Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

> On 4 April 2008 at 14:05, hadley wickham wrote:
> | I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
> | possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
>
> As I mentioned to Hadley in private mail, a version control system can update
> a field like $Date$ or $LastChangedDate$ automagically on writes or
> checkins. I use that as I also tend to forget to update the field manually.
> For SVN one must set one of the arcane propset fields.
>
> Hth, Dirk
>
> --
> Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Robert Gentleman
In reply to this post by hadley wickham


hadley wickham wrote:
>>   Please no.  If people want one then they should add it manually. It is
>> optional, and some of us have explicitly opted out and would like to
>> continue to do so.
>
> To clarify, do you mean you have decided not to provide a date field
> in the DESCRIPTION file?  If so, would you mind elaborating why?

  Sure: The date of what?


>
> Hadley
>

--
Robert Gentleman, PhD
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876
PO Box 19024
Seattle, Washington 98109-1024
206-667-7700
[hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo
In reply to this post by Dirk Eddelbuettel
2008/4/4, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[hidden email]>:

>
>  On 4 April 2008 at 14:05, hadley wickham wrote:
>  | I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
>  | possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
>
>
> As I mentioned to Hadley in private mail, a version control system can update
>  a field like $Date$ or $LastChangedDate$ automagically on writes or
>  checkins. I use that as I also tend to forget to update the field manually.
>  For SVN one must set one of the arcane propset fields.

That's not completely true. As far as I remember (git misses keywords)
svn keywords are always referred only to the file they appear in. So
this way the description file would contain the last date the
description file itself has been modified, not the last date 'any of
the package file s has been modified'.

>
>  Hth, Dirk
>
>
>  --
>  Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
>
>
>  ______________________________________________
>  [hidden email] mailing list
>  https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>


--
Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo
Ph.D. student at
Department of Statistical Sciences
University of Bologna, Italy

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

hadley wickham
In reply to this post by Robert Gentleman
> > To clarify, do you mean you have decided not to provide a date field
> > in the DESCRIPTION file?  If so, would you mind elaborating why?
> >
>
>   Sure: The date of what?

That's a good question.  Another possible solution would be to remove
(or down-weight the importance of) the date field, and instead use the
date from the built field.  This would affect the display of (at
least) the output from help(package=x) and the CRAN package page.

Hadley

--
http://had.co.nz/

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Dirk Eddelbuettel
In reply to this post by Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo

On 4 April 2008 at 23:15, Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo wrote:
| 2008/4/4, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[hidden email]>:
| >
| >  On 4 April 2008 at 14:05, hadley wickham wrote:
| >  | I'm always forgetting to update the date in DESCRIPTION.  Would it be
| >  | possible to add a warning to R CMD check if it's old?
| >
| >
| > As I mentioned to Hadley in private mail, a version control system can update
| >  a field like $Date$ or $LastChangedDate$ automagically on writes or
| >  checkins. I use that as I also tend to forget to update the field manually.
| >  For SVN one must set one of the arcane propset fields.
|
| That's not completely true. As far as I remember (git misses keywords)
| svn keywords are always referred only to the file they appear in. So
| this way the description file would contain the last date the
| description file itself has been modified, not the last date 'any of
| the package file s has been modified'.

I think you are correct. But as one has to augment the version number in
DESCRIPTION anyway, the subsequent check-in will set the date for free.  

It's a kludge, but one that has been working independently of R CMD ... for
years.

Hth, Dirk

--
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: R CMD check should check date in description

Paul Gilbert
In reply to this post by Robert Gentleman
Robert Gentleman wrote:

> Kurt Hornik wrote:
>  
>>>>>>> hadley wickham writes:
>>>>>>>              
>>>> I recently thought about this.  I see several issues.
>>>>
>>>> * How can we determine if it is "old"?  Relative to the time when the
>>>> package was uploaded to a repository?
>>>>
>>>> * Some developers might actually want a different date for a variety of
>>>> reasons ...
>>>>
>>>> * What we currently say in R-exts is
>>>>
>>>> The optional `Date' field gives the release date of the current
>>>> version of the package.  It is strongly recommended to use the
>>>> yyyy-mm-dd format conforming to the ISO standard.
>>>>
>>>> Many packages do not comply with the latter (but I have some code to
>>>> sanitize most of these), and "release date" may be a moving target.
>>>>
>>>> The best that I could think of is to teach R CMD build to *add* a Date
>>>> field if there was none.
>>>>        
>>> That sounds like a good solution to me.
>>>      
>> Ok.  However, 2.7.0 feature freeze soon ...
>>    
>
>    Please no.  If people want one then they should add it manually. It
> is optional, and some of us have explicitly opted out and would like to
> continue to do so.
>
>
>  
>>> Otherwise, maybe just a message from R CMD check?  i.e. just like
>>> failing the codetools checks, it might be perfectly ok, but you should
>>> be doing it consciously, not by mistake.
>>>      
>> I am working on that, too (e.g. a simple NOTE in case the date spec
>> cannot be canonicalized, etc.).  If file time stamps were realiable, we
>> could compare these to the given date.  This is I guess all we can do
>> for e.g. CRAN's daily checking (where comparing to the date the check
>> is run is not too useful) ...
>>    
>
>    But definitely not a warning.
>  
Yes, please not a warning.  I think of warnings as something I should
try to fix, so they throw errors in my make system.  If I change that I
will miss all the warnings.  If something is really optional then it
should at most be flagged by NOTE.  (BTW, if you use make to control
your build it is pretty easy to put the date in automatically.)

Paul

>    Robert
>
>  
>> Best
>> -k
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>>    
>
>  
====================================================================================

La version fran├žaise suit le texte anglais.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email may contain privileged and/or confidential in...{{dropped:26}}

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel