No longer in CRAN?

[iguanamarina]

Hi! I'm using your package quite a lot as a requirement for a small package I use at my company, I was wondering if you were planning to submit again to CRAN as at the moment I need to force install from GitHub.

Thanks for the great work!

[datalorax]

Hi, thanks for the issue. I'm no longer really actively developing or maintaining this package, but I would like it to still be on CRAN. I switched from academia to industry a little over a year ago and have found I just don't have the energy for this anymore.

I will try to find some time soon to look into the issues and get it resubmitted. I missed the emails about this from CRAN because they were going to my old work email.

[bbolker]

Should we be advertising for a new maintainer/developers? This is a valuable package ...

[datalorax]

If there is somebody who would like to take it over, I'm happy to pass it off. I really don't have the time for it these days, unfortunately.

With that said, I can try to find some time to at least get it back up on CRAN sometime soon.

[datalorax]

Just an update here - sorry I'm so ridiculously late. I merged your PR @bbolker and I fixed the texPreview issue. I'd like to address at least #213 before re-submitting, which hopefully won't take too long. Hope to have this resubmitted in the next week or so (maybe sooner if I can find some more time to work on it).

After it's back on CRAN, I'll update the README to advertise for a new maintainer.

[phgrosjean]

Any volunteer to maintain this package? I could do it (and I really need this package). However, I am not a mathematician and may not be the best person to discuss pure mathematical stuff. However, I maintain a dozen packages on CRAN. So, I am qualified for the "technical" aspects.

[bbolker]

I would be happy if you wanted to take on maintainership - I'd be willing to help with mathier stuff. (If you wanted you could modify the README etc. to indicate that the package is in "maintenance mode", i.e. you will try to fix bugs but make no commitment to adding features ...)

[datalorax]

Would be happy to pass it off. I'm sorry again. I made progress and was just about ready to submit to CRAN and then it fell through the cracks again for me. I think it is basically ready to submit.

Also though, I've never passed off maintainership of a package, so I'm not sure how to do that...

[phgrosjean]

Thanks @bbolker and @datalorax for your positive feedbacks. I will look at the bugs that have to be corrected. I will first see if I can make it a workable version for CRAN again with a reasonable amount of work. Anything at the top of the list?

By the way, I just did a pull request to clean up the Remotes entry in the DESCRIPTION file.

[bbolker]

The only thing that came up in an R CMD check --as-cran/devtools::check() was

Found the following (possibly) invalid URLs:
 URL: https://tinyurl.com/y43gpto4 (moved to https://github.com/datalorax/equatiomatic/tree/master/tests)
    From: README.md
    Status: 200
    Message: OK

presumably the tinyurl link should be changed to a direct link to the Github info.

Everything else seems to be administrative:

• bump version number (to 0.3.2?)

• let CRAN know about the maintainer switch: from the CRAN policies,

  When a new maintainer wishes to take over a package, this should be accompanied by the written agreement of the previous maintainer (unless the package has been formally orphaned).

  Presumably an e-mail from @datalorax to cran@r-project.org would suffice ...

• modify the DESCRIPTION file appropriately

• decide on the development mode going forward (i.e., does @datalorax give @phgrosjean push access to this repository, or does @phgrosjean make a fork and make that the new development location? (If so, the README in the original repo should get modified so people don't get confused.) (Given stuff like the list of existing issues etc. it seems better to keep the reference copy on this repo ...?) (This might also require an edit to the DESCRIPTION file)

[datalorax]

I am comfortable with any of the development directions forward you proposed, @bbolker.

[phgrosjean]

Also on CRAN check you can see that there are missing ... for several methods, but that seems to be already corrected in the code.

I'll make a pull request with the required changes.

Regarding pull access on 'datalorax' or fork into 'SciViews' (the GitHub organization that collects together all the R packages I develop), I am OK with both approaches. With the fork we need to be explicit in the original README file indeed. May be it is better to leave the package where it currently is?

[datalorax]

That works for me. If down the line you want to move it to SciViews I'm okay with that too.

Thank you for taking this on! I'm happy it will still be developed. I just ran out of steam and had a career change that left this type of work less motivating.

[phgrosjean]

I had to rewrite a part of the doc and to homogenize calls to methods. As usual, CRAN people are very picky, but they remarks were correct. Version 0.3.3 is now available again from CRAN!

[datalorax]

Thank you so much!