Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, please explain to me why a changelog that has had detail added to past > entries so that information that belongs to a given uploaded version IS in > the entry for that version, is worse than one that lacks this information, > OR has that information elsewhere?
Because it omits information, crucially, when a particular fact was learned. Why obscure information deliberately? > That is my whole point of contention. Not that I'd advocate going over the > changelog to add and update CAN and CVE data, as the security team already > said they don't really need it, but I want to know exactly what kind of > damage one would be doing by updating the changelog like that. So far, I > have not been convinced that we should be *against* someone doing it, if he > has the inclination to do so. If you add it with the actual date, saying "this was fixed by version such-and-such" or whatever, then you are maintaining a more accurate record. Why deliberately create a less accurate record? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
