Enforce package versioning and tracking of changes through review

[annakrystalli]

One of the omissions I see consistently is that, despite the significant changes to the package during review, the version number after review is often not changed during approval nor are changes kept track of through a NEWS.md. In our guidance we recommend versioning and using NEWS.md but it's not really something we are enforcing atm.

I feel at the very least the version should be different post review and perhaps this is something we should be reminding and checking as part of our approval checklist. However, enforcing the use of a NEWS.md throughout review could be an excellent way to capture all the great changes happening to rOpenSci packages throughout review! What are folks thoughts on this?

• We could ask that the author response include a link to the updated NEWS.md
• Perhaps at the start of the review it could be something that we ask them to add, along with the badge?
• The approval checklist could have something like

  [ ] Post-review version updated and changes documented in NEWS.md