Mercurial mail flood

Andrew John Hughes gnu_andrew at
Fri May 30 04:43:32 PDT 2008

2008/5/30 Matthias Klose <doko at>:
> Andrew John Hughes schrieb:
>> 2008/5/30 Mark Reinhold <mr at>:
>>> Personally I view the inclusion of patches in Mercurial notifications as
>>> a distraction unless they're very short, but I know that opinions differ
>>> on this.
>>> - Mark
>> Well, for me, it depends on whether the patches have been published on
>> a list prior to the commit.
>> With Classpath, we've never had patches in the mails; the commit
>> message and links to the diffs
>> on CVS appears.  The patches are posted separately to a separate list.
>>  In contrast, I've found some
>> of the icedtea commits useful to read, because that's the only place
>> I've seen the change.  But these
>> seem to be truncated if they go over a certain length and generated
>> files in the repository isn't helping
>> this.  So I'd tend to agree that very short easily digestable ones are
>> fine in the commits (see Lillian's recent minor
>> IcedTea changes for the release) but that larger patches should be
>> attached in a separate mail and (dare I say it) on a
>> separate list.
> Could we establish a policy not to redirect the commit messages to the ML, but
> instead require a manual posting of a patch (excluding generated files),
> together with a short rationale why the patch is applied and what it is supposed
> to fix? Should make it easier to track the history of patches. This information
> might be in some bug tracker, but probably not in the IcedTea tracker. Having
> this information in one place on the ML would be helpful.
>  Matthias

Andrew :-)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8

More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list