-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Autoload epidatasets
as a dependency rather than reexporting epidatasets data
#577
Conversation
Could you give an overview of the pros/cons of this change? I think I ended up adjusting things trying to make checks run over in #564, but I remember feeling forced into some approach to satisfy both R CMD CHECK and pkgdown checks simultaneously, and don't remember how that approach ended up "feeling". Does CRAN suggest against |
Pros for this change:
Cons:
Neutrals:
No specific guidelines about Depends vs Imports in the CRAN policies. |
Thanks for recording this! Notes:
Right, I doubt we are going to have name collisions. Just maybe some annoying junk in completion options. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- todo: resolve merge conflicts. Probably at least version number and where the NEWS entry goes because we did a 0.10.0 release for the workshop.
Checklist
Please:
PR).
brookslogan, nmdefries.
DESCRIPTION
. Always incrementthe patch version number (the third number), unless you are making a
release PR from dev to main, in which case increment the minor version
number (the second number).
(backwards-incompatible changes to the documented interface) are noted.
Collect the changes under the next release number (e.g. if you are on
1.7.2, then write your changes under the 1.8 heading).
process.
Change explanations for reviewer
Magic GitHub syntax to mark associated Issue(s) as resolved when this is merged into the default branch