* Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-01 02:36]: > Stephen Lau wrote: > >Currently, our notification mechanism sends a notification for each > >incoming changeset. On Mercurial, this means at the changeset level. > >For Subversion, this means at the commit level. > > > >We've now had two instances of massive putback overload due to > >importing/seeding a Mercurial repository with large amounts of > >changesets, resulting in 2000+ putback notifications. > > > >Given that only two people have actually seeded a Mercurial repository - > >I expect this will be a recurring problem ;-) > > > >We've got a few ways to go about solving the problem, and there are > >different angles of attack: (I'm going to talk about things from the > >Mercurial side, since I don't anticipate this problem with Subversion > >since you can't "push" massive numbers of changesets since the analogous > >seed action is 'svnadmin load'): > > > >(These are not mutually exclusive, and some of these solutions can and > >should be combined with others) > > > >1) Move the incoming-changeset hook to the incoming-changegroup hook and > >send one notification per changegroup > > I think that is how I expected it was setup anyway. > > Maybe a better solution would be to expose via the web interface all > the possible hooks where email could be sent (note I'm not suggesting > general hooks just email); and have the web page explain what will > happen for each of them. That would allow different mail addresses > for each hook, say the project alias for the changegroup hook and > the "lead commiter/gatekeeper" for changeset.
Hmm. That's not crazy, but having lots of options always worries me (on the support side). - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
