Require up to date issue/MR descriptions before sending an MR for review
More often than not when I have to review an MR, the MR itself contains very few details. The corresponding issue tends to only describe a very rough idea, not the actual details of the change. A recent example is https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/6448. While the MR body contains some details, it doesn't really describe that much. The corresponding issue in turn (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/6470) only contains a few very high level details in the issue body, with the rest of the data being hidden in the 50+ comments and discussions.
All of this means that in most cases I have no idea what I am reviewing, and obtaining that data can take a long time. Those reviewing changes already have their hands full reviewing the changes, they shouldn't also have to figure out what they are reviewing in the first place, what the requirements are, etc.
I don't remember if we have any existing rules for this, but if we do we're violating them left and right. Specifically, we need to somehow require that MRs describe certain technical details better, instead of only covering high level topics.
We should also start enforcing this using Danger, though our use of MR templates will make it a bit harder to detect/require a certain number of paragraphs (or anything like that).