check function naming #1598
check function naming #1598
Comments
Yes! |
I think we should also have |
I am not really sure why the code it written as it is, having 'R-release' first in the default argument does make it seem like it would default to 'R-release', but it does default to R-devel Anyway, I agree having separate functions makes sense to me. |
Oh that is super confusing! |
Just to note that this is currently backwards incompatible and requires some coding changes in consuming packages. (now getting an error from release check in code updated for dev version).
|
This old issue has been automatically locked. If you believe you have found a related problem, please file a new issue (with reprex) and link to this issue. https://reprex.tidyverse.org/ |
Should we rename
build_win()
tocheck_win()
andrhub_check()
tocheck_rhub()
to make the names more consistent and easier to discover?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: