[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Editing history... (about debian/changelog in experimental)

Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org> wrote:

> I personally feel that adding new changelog "blocks" is okay but
> editing old changelog blocks isn't okay, even if you are going to do a
> subsequent build with a -v when you go back to unstable.  I would
> either close the bug manually or put an entry in the latest changelog
> block with a parenthetical remark saying that bug was actually fixed
> by version x.y-z.  I feel that if you grab any old version of a
> package, the changelog should look identical to the current changelog
> after you remove all blocks whose date is later than the date of the
> old version.

I generally agree, but does this really hold for experimental? And
there's quite a benefit in having sensible, well-readable, comprehensive
changelogs for people using stable (and looking at old versions). 

By the way, I think that correcting typos is okay (And in one occasion I
removed the E-mail-address of a patch contributor who insisted on that
to prevent spam, well, ...). Or similar to a typo, but more serious: I
forgot to include the CVE number of a security issue I fixed in
unstable, and I am going to add it in the next upload, so that it is
clear when which CVE was fixed in sarge.

[remarks on "forward-porting" of unstable changelogs to experimental,]
[snipped because I agree]

> I did not, however, update the changelog with the security team NMUs
> made to the much older version in stable.

I wouldn't do that, either. 

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: