Mercurial mail flood
mark at klomp.org
Fri May 30 05:06:56 PDT 2008
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 12:43 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2008/5/30 Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu.com>:
> > 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.
It seems a good policy (especially the excluding generated files part)
IF this is done for all patches/commits, even those which some might
The reason I like having the commit messages including the actual
patches is because only then do I really have a good overview of what is
going into the tree. If people would actually post each and every patch
that they commit then that would obviously be enough.
And we could then use the rss feed to track and match posted patches to
what actually goes in. For those hating rss and having to be always
online (like me) we could install rss2email.
More information about the web-discuss