Mercurial mail flood

[Jonathan Gibbons]

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
integration area.

-- Jon

On May 30, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>>
>> +1
>
> 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  
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>