> I think it's desirable for development that *happens on* the personal and > vendor branches to be visible in gcc-cvs - that is different from things > getting merged into them. > > Likewise for the refs/heads/devel/* development branches - > non-fast-forward pushes are not permitted there, but such branches can > expect to have lots of merges from master, and it's the actual development > taking place *on* the branches - the new commits - that is of interest to > see on gcc-cvs, not the merging of existing commits.
Would it be sufficient to say that some branches would only trigger a summary email, but not individual commit emails? The downside is that you would not be getting the "diff" for commits that are really completely new. But on the other hand, it would fit better with the fact that user branches could have frequent re-basing, thus causing the same commit email being sent over and over at each rebase operation. It would also answer the issue of the number of emails being sent when people are doing a merge which brings in more commits than the max-emails number. -- Joel
