[R-pkg-devel] Resubmitting Archived Packages

[Uwe Ligges]

On 12.12.2025 16:33, Ben Bolker wrote:
>    I hesitate to prolong this part of the conversation, but ...
> 
>    ... when CRAN says "issues need fixing before [DATE]" (e.g. see 
> https://hadley.github.io/cran-deadlines/), is that technically "on or 
> before" or "strictly before"?  Without worrying about time zones at the 
> moment, if my deadline is 2026-01-01 and I upload a new version of my 
> package sometime on 2026-01-01, am I OK?  Or do I need to have uploaded 
> a version on the previous day?

"Before" is meant as "<".

In the past we had communication issues as is was not obvious for 
everybody that British English speakers use "by" in the sense of "<".
I believed "before" was clear enough, but maybe we have to use a 
mathematical expression?

Best,
Uwe Ligges




>    cheers
>     Ben Bolker
> 
> On 2025-12-11 6:38 p.m., Kenny, Christopher wrote:
>> Thank you both for your responses.
>>
>> The deadline had not passed at the time the package was removed. It 
>> was before the deadline at every single point on Earth. He removed the 
>> package early. It’s an error, plain and simple.
>>
>> I'm happy to share the email with the deadline if that would help.
>>
>> Thank you also for reviewing the update to geomander.
>>
>> (On the point of manual review, the package goes to newbies, but based 
>> on the speed of the response, it may not take an entire human review 
>> in the same way as other packages.)
>>
>> Best,
>> Chris
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Uwe Ligges <ligges using statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 6:24 PM
>> To: Kenny, Christopher <christopherkenny using fas.harvard.edu>; R Package 
>> Development <r-package-devel using r-project.org>
>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Resubmitting Archived Packages
>>
>>
>> On 11.12.2025 20:07, Kenny, Christopher wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I was looking for advice on best practices for resubmitting packages 
>>> that were archived.
>>>
>>> This morning, Brian Ripley erroneously archived one of my packages 
>>> (geomander) prior to the deadline to fix a broken example. He then 
>>> archived its reverse dependencies a few minutes later.
>>
>>
>> Why erroneously? Your deadline passed.
>> A new deadline was set for the reverse dependencies, but as mail to the
>> maintainer bounced, that new deadline was not needed as the reverse
>> dependencies got archived for themselves as they are unmaintained.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Given that CRAN is closing for the winter soon, I would like to fix 
>>> this issue quickly. I have already resubmitted geomander this 
>>> morning, as I had originally planned. However, as the packages are 
>>> archived, each now must undergo a manual review, which takes more time.
>>>
>>> Is it acceptable to submit the other downstream packages while the 
>>> first is awaiting manual checks, as long as they are submitted in 
>>> order of the dependency tree? As the original package had only a 
>>> broken example and the reverse dependencies were actively passing 
>>> checks, the review should be simple.
>>
>>
>> Please submit geomander and get it accepted first. The others will be
>> auto-archived otherwise.
>>
>> Best,
>> Uwe Ligges
>>
>>
>>> I would appreciate any advice or wisdom on how to reupload them 
>>> expeditiously.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> christophertkenny.com - christopherkenny using fas.harvard.edu
>>> Christopher T. Kenny, PhD
>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate, Data-Driven Social Science, 
>>> Princeton University
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>