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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
