My personal opinion is that maintaining a catalog of undesirable commits and detection/enforcement logic is not the best use of maintainer time and will not result in a more efficient system. But if you want to spend your time on it, give it a shot and maybe others will use it too.
Funny you should say that. https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/a04f2a265ee1457256d59a436256ddce6a927374 https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/7a9516f4bcf47790ec9d70380d83bb015f0d3e8e My idea here is (a) create a dotfile in a commit that only gets merged into next, and (b) add a hook to 'make info' that warns you if that file is present and your branch isn't named 'next'. This change doesn't help a maintainer, who knows the workflow and can spot undesirable commits better than a script, but it does reach out to developers who, ehm, may not have read the wiki, and warns them as soon as they start to test their changes on a branch that was based on 'next'. Toby
