mark padgham

Can't do anything here until upstream changes to `bookdown` linked to above, so bumping milestone to 0.9 for now.

@cromanpa94 Please excuse the delayed response. Most of the ROpenSci team were on vacation, and only now able to debug our new package check bot. Current Editor-in-Chief @noamross will respond...

@cromanpa94 To make editor @annakrystalli's job easier, can you run [`pkgcheck::pkgcheck()`](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/pkgcheck) yourself once you've made appropriate changes and confirm the `summary` at the top (or result of `summary()` applied to...

Thanks @emilyriederer, because of this submission we now have an ability to process packages with non-default review branches. You (or indeed @s3alfisc) may call `check package` at any time. (But...

@awstringer1 That's because the repo has been updated since the report linked to above was generated. As stated in the automated checks, you can - *and in this case should*...

Good idea @Bisaloo, and I do agree ... but any recommendations regarding this are also going to subject to quite a bit of change over the next year or two,...

Not easily, alas, because there's no way to auto - insert descriptions in previously written descriptions. The closest would be to insert at very start in parentheses. Things like that...

Thanks for the submission @grwhumphries, and for bearing with us while we use submissions to refine our system. In your case, the above "srr" section reveals a bug which we...

@emilyriederer One of the statistical categories this package complies with is "*Probability Distributions*", which is currently in [draft-mode only](https://github.com/ropensci/statistical-software-review-book/pull/67). I've implemented a corresponding "dev" branch of [the `srr` package](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/srr/pull/32) which...

@tdhock Only just realised the command there has the wrong syntax - should be `add to reviewers`, like [this example](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/470#issuecomment-954890209). Could you please try again? Nevertheless good that you got...