NESCent / popgenInfo

Vignettes for Population Genetics in R
http://popgen.nescent.org
MIT License
20 stars 50 forks source link

SummarySequenceData present on website, but not in repository #126

Closed zkamvar closed 8 years ago

zkamvar commented 8 years ago

The SummarySequenceData vignette still appears on the website, but does not exist on the master branch of the repository. It appears that this vignette previously failed checks and was pushed to a development branch in #87 and #89. I think the course of action is to take it from the development branch, clean it up, and do a new pull request.

zkamvar commented 8 years ago

Additionally, it appears that old, outdated vignettes are retained on the website. Do we want this?

hlapp commented 8 years ago

I'm pretty certain we don't. It's a result of the way that the website gets built (which is by adding files to a clean slate, but the clean slate is not in version control).

I'll need to revisit how this works and see whether I can perhaps use rsync instead.

zkamvar commented 8 years ago

I'm going to open the outdated vignettes on website as a new issue. For this one, I want to focus specifically on resurrecting SummarySequenceData.Rmd

zkamvar commented 8 years ago

I'm adding this to the publication milestone because it is currently listed in the publication.

hlapp commented 8 years ago

For this one, I want to focus specifically on resurrecting SummarySequenceData.Rmd

It has been resurrected 1.5 months ago, see 16b52608de7f5ed41d04d7b7c889248d9fff6535. This is on branch summaryseqstats (see https://github.com/NESCent/popgenInfo/blob/summaryseqstats/use/SummarySequenceData.Rmd). The tests currently fail for this vignette, which is why I wanted it off of master.

hlapp commented 8 years ago

I should also note that this is summarized in #89. Now that you separated out #127, what remains here that is not a duplicate of #89?

zkamvar commented 8 years ago

I should also note that this is summarized in #89. Now that you separated out #127, what remains here that is not a duplicate of #89?

A lively discussion :joy:

...I'll close this in favor of #89.