Re: CAN to CVE: changing changelogs?
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Horms wrote:
> > > I believe that changelogs should never be changed restrospectively.
> >
> > Why not? Technical reasons only, please. Fixing changelogs so that they
> > are more useful in the future is common in Debian. These are slight edits,
> > always, not entry suppresion or something like that. Trimming them down is
> > also very common on long-standing packages, and something that is needed.
> > Usually, the older entries are moved to a separate file to rot there
> > out-of-the-way.
>
> Because I don't believe in revisionist history, thats all.
That's an extremely weak argument IMO. I will continue doing what the
security team asks and add CVE numbers to the versions that closed security
bugs, as well as fixing typos and the like when I notice them on my
changelogs. I do not consider this to be revisionist history.
But at least we know that this subthread can end right here, right now. It
is useless to discuss beliefs that exist without a technical backing, and I
won't waste my time with it.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: