Updates lacking descriptions

[Kevin Kofler]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Ah..but project wide..is this place to have a quality enhancement
> discussion currently? Let me try to put this into perspective. This
> post started about 4 updates. How many updates have we pushed? What is
> our defect rate? Like 1% or something?  What's are defect rate
> associated with packaging generally? Aren't we seeing more packaging
> defects than update text defects? And if so, shouldn't we
> concentrating on packaging defect prevention until the defect rate
> drops below the defect rate in update texts?

The defect rate in update texts is extremely high, there's way too much 
stuff getting pushed with crap update notes. Blank update notes aren't the 
only problem, there's also the almost useless "new upstream version" 
boilerplate. Folks, what I want to know is WHAT CHANGED in the new upstream 
version and/or WHY it's getting pushed as an update. Usually "and", i.e. 
both are required in most cases. (There are often more changes than just the 
one(s) justifying the update.)

Unlike some people here, I do think most of the updates getting pushed DO 
make sense to push. I just want more transparency.

Plus, writing down a couple sentences about the update takes at most 5 
minutes and their absence should be obvious. Preventing a technical defect 
you may not even know about is much harder.

        Kevin Kofler