A number of years ago, this practice was known as the "good enough to ship" philosophy and attributed to Microsoft.
Mr. Patel nailed it. This does a disservice to the client by giving them a bug ridden product that had neither sufficient time for a proper QA/regression cycle nor for supporting documentation.
QA and documentation groups need time to verify features and operation. Agile development seems to be the culprit when I encounter this situation.It's seems fine for smaller projects with small dev groups. However, I have yet to see Agile function smoothly: i.e., a smooth development cycle where all the pieces fit, sufficient QA/regression cycles, and documentation that matches reality.
What I do see are missed release dates as a matter of course, purposely short QA and regression in vain attempts to release on time, and docs that have to be written against thin air, as their writers didn't have the finished product until the clients did. And even then it doesn't work like that wonderful idea from the beginning. Some companies can only push the releases so far before violating delivery contracts.
New does not mean panacea.
