intrigeri wrote (11 Feb 2015 22:49:02 GMT) : > I have a few concerns, though:
Here's one more: the proposed notification mechanism makes sense to me for topic branches. But for "base" branches, it's more complicated: * when building after a Git push, it does make sense to notify the committer on failure -- that is, in theory, the person who merged something into the branch, and apparently forgot to make sure it builds before pushing * when building daily, on failure I don't see how it can be useful to notify the last person who merged something to into a base branch; so, who is responsible to keep these branches in a buildable state? In practice, quite often, by default it's me -- and I never volunteered to do that. I'd rather see this formally put on the release manager's plate, since these branches are only useful to prepare the next release. So, IMO the RM should be notified in this case. Now, if it's too complicated, implementation-wise, to differenciate these two situations, and we have to choose between committer, RM, and tails-dev@, then I'd be in favour of notifying either the RM or tails-dev@, who are more likely to be/feel responsible for the failure than the last committer. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
