Update `cran-comments.md` template to be more actionable for CRAN maintainers

[coatless]

Summary

The current cran-comments.md template provided by usethis focuses heavily on reporting R CMD check results, which CRAN maintainers don't rely on as they run their own checks. This issue proposes a revised template that focuses on information CRAN maintainers have specifically requested and find actionable during the review process.

Current issues

The current template emphasizes R CMD check results for a new package:

usethis/inst/templates/cran-comments.md

Line 3 in a653d6e

0 errors | 0 warnings | 1 note

However, based on feedback from CRAN maintainers and experiences with submission processes like devtools::release() or a Github Action workflow, the most common issues flagged during review are:

1. Unanswered questions from previous submissions
2. Lack of justification for rapid resubmissions
3. Insufficient information about breaking changes to reverse dependencies

Proposed template change

Replace the current template with one that directly addresses these key concerns:

## Package Submission

* Submission type: [initial/update/resubmission]

## Response to Previous CRAN Feedback

[Direct responses to each point raised in previous submissions]

## Urgency Justification (if applicable)

[Explain why this update is urgent, if submitted soon after previous version]

## Reverse Dependency Impact

* Breaking changes: [Yes/No]
* If Yes:
  * Affected packages: [list]
  * Maintainers notified: [When, response summary]

## Additional Information

[Any other relevant details requested by CRAN maintainers or useful to them]

This change requires updating the template file at inst/templates/cran-comments.md in the usethis package.

[jennybc]

Have you got evidence that CRAN actually reads these? I never have, i.e. I feel like I always have to reply-all and address whatever the specific concern is in a hand-crafted email. I basically regard this file as an internal-to-the-package document that tracks submission details over time and that I draw on when writing said emails. In that sense, sticking with the existing format has value.

I'm not saying your proposal is a bad idea, but I think we should acknowledge that this file isn't actually typically consulted by CRAN maintainers, despite the name.

[coatless]

@jennybc I do via private communication with CRAN related to non-submission form package submissions.

I can provide off-site. (rOpenSci Slack?)

[jennybc]

Sure, I am happy to hear more.

[hadley]

I feel like I have an active line of communication with Kurt and Uwe and I have not heard any requests for this, and I'm sceptical we want to make changes without that.