A short presentation in Spanish about submitting a package to CRAN and maintain it.
Introduction In the first post of the series we briefly explored packages available on CRAN. Now I’ll focus on history of the packages and its size using the following files:
Exploration of the CRAN archive: First part about packages published on CRAN
In this post I will provide some examples of what has changed between rtweet 0.7.0 and rtweet 1.0.2. I hope both the changes and this guide will help all users.
To avoid post with incorrect XML on full content you can limit the post served on the pages.
Most frequent reason is due to the package not fixed on time, followed by depending on packages archived and policy violation.
Bug reports history review and common actions and patterns. People that contribute and how it might continue to go.
I’ve been doing some analysis on the review submissions of several projects of R. However, till recently I couldn’t analyze the CRAN submission. There was cransays’ package to check package submissions which on the online documentation provided a dashboard which updated each hour.
Comparing rOpenSci review process to the Bioconductor review process. Most important differences are external reviewers and build on external machines as well as a longer review time.
Looking in detail to Bioconductor sumbissions: interactions between bots, reviewers and the community.