[Rd] [PATCH] Makefile: add support for git svn clones

Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 23:11:38 CET 2015

On 19/01/2015 4:13 PM, Nathan Kurz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi at kernel.org> wrote:
>> I just thought that such a small patch which causes no visible change to
>> SVN users and allow for git users to build R would be acceptable, but if
>> it isn't, that's fine too.
> Felipe ---
> It would appear that you are unaware that you are walking a minefield
> of entrenched positions and personality conflicts.  For those like
> myself who are mystified by the positions taken in this thread, a
> partial back story may be helpful.

I don't think there should be anything particularly mystifying here.
The people who would have to maintain the patch can't test it.  The
people who can test it can apply it themselves.  It's just a matter of
efficiency.  There's a very easy way for you to use the svn checkout,
and that is to check it out using svn.  If you want to use a tool that's
never tested, then you're on your own.

In another reply to you, Joshua pointed out one of the problems that
using untested tools causes.  It wasted a lot of Hin-Tak's and other
people's time.  That time could have been spent in a productive way, but
it wasn't.

Duncan Murdoch

> In 2012, Han-Tak Leung reported a problem compiling the development
> version of R that he had checked out using git's svn compability
> feature: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2012-October/065133.html
> In 2013, Brian Ripley applied a patch with the comment "trap HK Leung
> misuse" explicitly to prevent users from being able to do this:
> https://github.com/wch/r-source/commit/4f13e5325dfbcb9fc8f55fc6027af9ae9c7750a3
> Shortly thereafter, Han-Tak tried to start discussion on this list
> about that patch, suggesting that preventing the use of non-SVN
> mirrors reduced the frequency with which development versions would be
> tested:
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2013-March/066128.html
> The opinions expressed on the thread were universally against Leung.
> Peter Dalgaard summarized as:
> "The generic point is that you are given access to a working tool that
> is internal to the core R developers. We are not putting restrictions
> on what you do with that access, but if you want to play the game by
> other rules than we do, you need to take the consequences. If things
> don't work and you start complaining about them being "broken", steps
> may be taken to make it clearer who broke them."
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2013-March/066131.html
> As a newcomer hoping to contribute to R who had already encountered
> this same compilation issue and considered it was a bug, I am
> astounded to learn that it is instead desired and intentional
> behavior.
> --nate

More information about the R-devel mailing list