RFC: no automatic updates of packages with major version change

Paul Gilbert pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca
Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:10:13 -0500

> >Now, we could throw the onus on the maintainers to add a
> >
> >BackwardsCompatible:FALSE
> >
> >flag to the DESCRIPTION file, if people really think that would be easier.

> But instead of "FALSE", I'd rather see the earliest compatible version
> number listed.  For example, if 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 are all compatible,
> all versions could say
>  BackwardsCompatibleTo:  1.0

I like this better too. To be safe, it is better to assume no backwards
compatibility unless it is indicate. Thus, if the line is omitted in the latter
case, then there is no guarantee, and in the former case the line should be


with the default being FALSE.

Another thing that may be worth distinguishing is whether this means a library
is thought to be backward compatible, or tested to be backward compatible (and
perhaps tested on which versions of R). With respect to Depends: ( R > ?? ) I
admit to being somewhat delinquent in this respect. I change the R version if I
know something has changed, but I rarely test with old versions, and when I do
it is certainly only on one operating system.

Paul Gilbert
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch