Hi, Am Sonntag, den 28.03.2010, 10:41 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva: > Excerpts from erikd's message of Dom Mar 28 02:56:12 -0300 2010: > (...) > > haskell-unixutils (1.22-2) unstable; urgency=low > > > > [ Erik de Castro Lopo ] > > * debian/control > > - Maintainer is Debian Haskell Group. > > - - Add mysself to uplaoders. > > + - Add myself to uploaders. > > It's not a good idea to correct old changelog entries, of released versions. > It's better to just live the mistake there, maybe correcting in a newer > changelog entry, which is not the case here. just to demonstrate that sometimes, different opinions are in Debian: I’ve seen people fix typos in changelogs, and personally, I don’t see whats wrong with it. The policy does not state anything specific, but has a footnote with an suggestion: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f14 „Mistakes in changelogs are usually best rectified by making a new changelog entry rather than "rewriting history" by editing old changelog entries.“ I interpret that that in case of foo (0.2) unstable; urgency=low * Really add patch for world domination -- me later foo (0.1) unstable; urgency=low * Add patch for world domination -- me earlier one should not change the earlier, wrong statement semantically. But fixing typos is not a semantic change, and therefore, I’d say its ok. A quick Google search did not turn up any other opinions or discussions. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part