Negative karma for missing update descriptions?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:09:54 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:

> Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package.

Hmmm ... the definition of "new package" is different.
It refers to a new package approved during package review. ;-)

For an ordinary update you refer to, you should try to sum up the
differences compared with the previous release you've made for the same
distribution. Mentioning which the "previous release" is can be helpful,
too. For example, "update from 0.4 to 0.7", skipping 0.5 and 0.6, and the
relevant changes in those versions might be of interest to the user 
(the RPM %changelog isn't safe when spec files get copied to branches).
Does the update only contain fixes added to the Fedora package? Is it a
maintenance release with bug-fixes and/or small changes? Is it a minor or
major upgrade?

> But this "catanzaro" still gave me -1 to the update.

A '0' would have been more friendly, IMO. 

This could be added to the feedback guidelines, but those aren't too
popular either. it seems, since some bodhi voters ignore earlier votes.
This could become sort of a mess soon.