mark padgham

@ropensci-review-bot set due date for @khondula to 2025-11-21

> [@mpadge](https://github.com/mpadge), for the record, we had to make a new release due to a failing check on CRAN. Considering also the extensive documentation changes and bug fixes made in...

(And full disclosure, @khondula also reviewed [one of my own packages](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/330), and was extremely helpful, and [got the package in way better shape](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/330#issuecomment-534942535) that it would have been without her...

@ropensci-review-bot check package

No, it's on the USEPA universe. The rOpenSci bit is just the branding for r-universe as a whole. The universe name is the first sub-domain of the URL.

Thanks @mccroweyclinton-EPA, responses to your questions follow: > > * ✖️ does not have a 'contributing' file. > > I will consider adding this Our [_Dev Guide_ clearly states](https://devguide.ropensci.org/maintenance_collaboration.html#contributing-guide): >...

Thanks @mccroweyclinton-EPA for the progress update. The pkgcheck action is indeed [running as expected](https://github.com/USEPA/RAQSAPI/actions/workflows/pkgcheck.yaml). It is, however, failing for reasons given on the [issue output](https://github.com/USEPA/RAQSAPI/issues/28#issuecomment-3090578932). (And also note that it...

Thanks for asking @mccroweyclinton-EPA, and no worries about discussing these things here, although you can always open an issue in your own repo regarding highly specific issues, and ping me...

@mccroweyclinton-EPA Please ignore that warning - it is also ignored by 'pkgcheck', and merely appears in the output. It'll be fixed via https://github.com/assignUser/octolog/issues/18

Thanks for the updates @mccroweyclinton-EPA. The goodpractice linter checks are okay, as they only raise :eyes:, and not actual failures (✖️ ). Everyone should feel free to use their own...