Re: r-cran-rsdmx autopkgtest failing
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:36PM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > Routine-update does *nothing* with copyright/licenses. I have no idea
> > how to automate this step and its up to the maintainer (no matter
> > whether an automated tool is used or not).
>
> Actually I was just suggesting that routine-update print a message
> to remind that copyright/licenses need to be verified.
Feel free to push to the repository whatever hint you consider helpful. ;-)
> Also note that there exist tools for updating d/copyright more or less
> automatically, but none is a perfect substitute to manual intervention.
Can you name such tools (possibly hinting to them in the said message
to print)?
> > I've just pushed this[1].
>
> Thanks for that.
You are welcome.
> > That's true. But honestly, what policy breaking changes do you expect
> > in R package upgrades?
>
> I was speaking on a general level. I agree that for R packages, since
> they almost all follow the same structure, the risk is lesser (and if
> something needs to be updated, an ad hoc change to routine-update could
> be implemented to update all packages).
That's exactly the point. In the times of manual updates (2 or 3 API
transitions ago when routine-update was not available yet) I realised
that I forgot from time to time things I intended to do on all packages.
> I perfectly understand your point, and I am not criticizing the way
> you’re doing things. Basically you’ve taken an approach which consists
> in detecting some problems ex post rather than ex ante, because doing
> all ex ante checks would not be practically feasible. I think this is a
> perfectly reasonable approach, given the constraints that you’re
> facing.
>
> I was just trying to explain why I prefer not to use a fully automated
> approach. But I admit that my workflow would probably not manageable if
> I were maintaining more R packages than I currently do (i.e. only a
> dozen).
I admit I continue to hope that every team member touches every package
freely. This is supported by routine-update by realising the person who
is calling the script is not mentioned as Uploader and will create a
"Team upload" entry. Everybody is kindly invited to do this (for
instance to speed up a transition or to help with the normal upgrades /
bug fixes).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: