Add revision history section to SA/EN template

[emaste]

And drop roman numerals, they're needlessly obtuse. May make the "1) To update your system via a binary patch:" confusing, but IMO that section should also be reworked.

[markj]

I'm not wholly convinced we should add a timeline to EN notices. ENs are really their own thing, we just happen to distribute them together with SAs. Better to avoid adding more friction to EN handling. OTOH, I guess a typical timeline would have two entries: one for the initial report, one for the release, so it's not too bad.

[emaste]

Whitespace

[gordon]

Do we really need a revision history for every EN/SA despite the fact 95% of them will just have the "initial revision"?

website/static/security/advisory-template.txt

25

How about just dropping the Revision History line item and if/when needed, we just put it before the background in a headerless section?

website/static/security/errata-template.txt

25

Same as above

[delphij]

website/static/security/advisory-template.txt

25

Other major vendors do not publish revision history (usually they have a "updated" date, if some changes were made after the bulletin is initially published).

Note that tools have improved quite a bit since the last template change too (for example, we can easily add a link to the revisions of the advisory file so those who really want to see the difference can get the information there), therefore, removing the whole section in favor of using the Announced header sounds reasonable to me.