-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add documentation about how to handle closely related packages #562
Comments
we'd need guidance for the author guide (I'd probably recommend opening a pre-submission inquiry to help figure things out on a case by case basis) and the reviewer guide. Also maybe the editor guide (how exactly do you recruit reviewers for a probably more complex + time-consuming review process). |
We'd also need to check how the infrastructure would handle this (cc @mpadge) |
this comment lifewatch/mregions2#17 (comment) by @salvafern reminded me of this |
Some packages are designed to work well together, or one package may not have any use at all without the other (e.g., {targets} and {tarchetypes}). There should be formal guidance on how to treat such packages during code review (under what circumstances should they be included in a single review vs. split, etc.)
cf ropensci/software-review#401
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: