fixed R package repo state, when files are not available any more by FelixErnst · Pull Request #95 · eddelbuettel/drat (original) (raw)

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Conversation11 Commits4 Checks0 Files changed

Conversation

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})

this catches problems, when files are manually deleted, especially files from newest package versions.

adds constency to manages repos and might add to solving #65

this catches problems, when files are manually deleted, especially newest version files.

Comment on lines -34 to +39

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this seems to be unnecessary.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please clarify what 'this' is. I can't make sense of your comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

extra two empty spaces with no purpose

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well -- certain editors do that removal automagically. If it bothers you in diffs, the settings above allows to ignore whitespace and then reload. I sometimes do that because yes -- it is line noise.

Ok folks, can we please agree that this the last pull request we throw over the fence without prior discussion in an issue ticket?

In other words, if the idea was to revisit #65, I can see no valid reason why there could not have been a discussion first in #65 about "hey how about if we do this or that" first.

Sorry for being so straight forward. It caused a bit of problem/confusion on my end after a repo had been active for 6 weeks now and experiencing some heavy changes while a SOP has not clearly been defined, yet. I consider this a bugfix, which was for me warranted an immediate PR.

The comment about #65 was included, since it seemed connected, but not confirmed by me. I am of for the next week and a half.

Have a good vacation. We can pick this up when you come back.

I am confused now. I thought we were finalizing this? Oh well 🤷‍♂️

I think it needs more discussion on the issue. I would re-open this, if its clear what the consensus is.

Sorry, this fell to the wayside as the combination of way too much Sturm & Drang followed by a hectic and not exactly coordinayed commit wave followed by you being away was apparently too much to keep up calmly.

Looks good now, so I'll merge and likely upload a new version soon, possibly after some light testing here.

Thanks for making those changes. I think this is all for the better.