Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

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?