Mercurial mail flood
Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM
Fri May 30 06:53:30 PDT 2008
For my part, I dislike the messages going to all the -dev aliases for
an integration area
if only because it clogs up the mail archives. When I put back changes
to TL, the same
announcement goes to 4 separate mailing lists, including 3 -dev
aliases, and is archived
in each of those mail archives. I know disk is cheap, but ....
I still think that this would be better with either RSS or mail to a
list that is specific to an
On May 30, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
> find trivial.
> 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
> that they commit then that would obviously be enough.
> And we could then use the rss feed to track and match posted patches
> 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