Negative karma for missing update descriptions?

[Adam Williamson]

On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because
> they were missing update descriptions. While I understand that
> maintainers should provide proper update messages, I hardly think an
> update should be given negative karma for this. This has happened 
> before
> and iirc, it was decided that Bodhi is not a policy enforcing tool and
> an update should only be given karma if it does or doesn't fix the bugs
> it claims to modify.

This is the result of a currently-active thread on devel@:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184641.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184687.html

Full disclosure: I actually endorsed -1 votes on updates with faulty 
(empty, or placeholder) descriptions in that thread. Now I'm thinking 
that might have been going a bit far, but do bear in mind these 
descriptions are displayed in our update tools, under the assumption 
they'll actually be sane. When they aren't, it does look pretty damn 
unprofessional.

> Can a sentence on this please be added to the feedback guidelines[1]
> clarifying this?
> 
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines

I'm happy to add a note to that with whatever the consensus of the 
discussions turns out to be.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net