« Because it's Friday: Behold, the bookbook | Main | Introducing Revolution R Open and Revolution R Plus »

October 13, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why do you have require(checkpoint) in your graphic and library(checkpoint) in your code? I know require just tries to load the package and if it fails, keeps going on it's merry way. Is there a reason for it?

There's no particular reason. I have a bad habit of using require() in my scripts, but library() is actually the better one to use.

This looks great!

Currently checkpoint depends on R>=3.1.1, is that a hard requirements?

Thanks.

Hi,

really awesome. Was looking for something like that. One issue:

We use bioconductor a lot. It would be nice to either:
- have an interface to bioconductor
- expose the function that scans for all library and require statements
- filter package names that do not exist on cran (which are then hopefully the packages that exist on bioconductor)

Hi Holger, we have some ideas on how to incorporate bioconductor packages, github packages and private packages into the checkpoint system -- stay tuned. In the meantime, you might want to check out Gran or Packrat (see the links at the top of this post).

David, could you say a little about advantages/disadvantages of this vs. Packrat?

@Clayton, packrat's more flexible, in that you can mix-and-match R packages from different epochs. checkpoint is designed to be less flexible, but much simpler. It's easier to share reproducible scripts with checkpoint -- the script alone is sufficient. With packrat, you need to share the packages as well (or have your script configured in a github repo). Depending on what you need, either checkpoint or packrat might be the best fit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Revolutions Blog




Got comments or suggestions for the blog editor?
Email David Smith.
Follow revodavid on Twitter Follow David on Twitter: @revodavid
Get this blog via email with Blogtrottr
‚Äč