Unhelpful update descriptions

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 18:20 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> The discussion seems to have branched out a bit, but going back to 
> Michael's original mail, he's clearly onto something. It should not be 
> too hard for Bodhi to reject:
> 
> * Entirely empty update descriptions
> * An update description which is simply the placeholder text
> 
> and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't just do that. Luke, could we 
> make it so?
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
This sounds good. It seems like there's some contention as to the proper
level of detail in update descriptions, and that's fine, but I think we
all agree that these two cases are not acceptable. Thanks!

Michael Catanzaro
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130313/555fa608/attachment.sig>