I disagree, at least in this case. In the comment you're replying to, the new manager is technical and familiar with the codebase, and can assess that the reason for the rollbacks is a genuine quality issue. This is useful information, and if you leave it out then you leave your report partially in the dark, wondering if the rollbacks are happening for some other reason (I can think of plenty).
I'm not saying it needs to literally be in the first sentence or phrased exactly like that, but I don't think that's what they meant anyway. Rather, you do need to be upfront about it instead of alluding to the problem without giving away what you actually think.
> the new manager is technical and familiar with the codebase, and can assess that the reason for the rollbacks is a genuine quality issue. This is useful information
Only if the report doesn't already know it. But they probably do. It doesn't seem likely to me that the report would be in the dark about why the rollbacks happened. And if they already know it, it's better to let them ask for help than to tell them up front that you, their manager, know that their code quality is an issue. Give them a chance to identify the issue themselves first.
You haven't met anyone that has quality issues but doesn't realise it? Lucky you!
Even if they do, mentioning that everyone is rejecting their code and asking why they think that is, when you know full well the answer, is classic passive aggression and more condescending than just stating the obvious situation (again, not saying it literally needs to be in the same breath like the sentence I quoted).
That's not what "rollbacks" means. "Rollbacks" means other people accepted their code, let it get into production, and then an issue surfaced that forced the change to be rolled back, and this happened multiple times. So at a minimum, there have to be other people besides this particular coder who made mistakes, multiple times.
If other people rejected their code multiple times in code review, the problem wouldn't be "multiple rollbacks", it would be "multiple rejections in code review", and yes, in that situation you have a much better case for being up front about "quality issues in their code", since the process itself is working and highlighting that specific issue.
> you know full well the answer
If you are operating on the belief that only this particular report bears responsibility for "multiple rollbacks", then I think you do not "know full well the answer". You are ignoring the fact that other people had to let this poor quality code get into production in order to have rollbacks happen. You are also ignoring your own responsibility as a manager (as the sibling post to yours by cutemonster pointed out) to address issues like this before they result in multiple instances of a problem with production code (see my response to the sibling post I just mentioned).
> You haven't met anyone that has quality issues but doesn't realise it? Lucky you!
We're not just talking about someone who has code quality issues. We're talking about someone who has code quality issues that have resulted in multiple rollbacks. Even if they weren't bright enough to spot that their code quality contributed on their own, they're going to hear about it from other people who had to get involved in the rollbacks.
One could say that the scenario as described in the post I originally responded to, by localghost3000, doesn't make sense, yes. If there have already been multiple rollbacks, and this is the first conversation you as a manager are having about them with this report, then you as a manager have already messed up by not addressing the issue sooner.
But that just makes it even more of a problem to lead with language like "quality issues in your code", implying that all the responsibility lies with the report, and none of it lies with you, the manager. The approach I described, where you focus first on the objective fact, that the rollbacks happened, and on how to keep them from happening again, avoids that.
I'm not saying it needs to literally be in the first sentence or phrased exactly like that, but I don't think that's what they meant anyway. Rather, you do need to be upfront about it instead of alluding to the problem without giving away what you actually think.