On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:17:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:57:11PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> No, I do not think we have a way to blacklist certain recipient > >> addresses from getting passed to the MTA, and I do not object to > >> addition of such a mechanism if there is a valid need to do so. > >> > >> It feels a bit too convoluted to say "Cc: to this address" in the > >> log message and then "nonono, I do not want to send there", though. > >> Why do you want to have Cc: in the log message if you do not want to > >> send e-mail to that address in the first place? Allowing the > >> behaviour you are asking for would mean that those who see that the > >> commit appeared on a branch would not be able to assume that the > >> patch has already been sent to the stable review address, no? > > > > I could see where it might seem a bit strange. ;-) > > > > The reason behind this is that you are not supposed to actually send > > email to the stable lists until after the patch has been accepted into > > mainline. One way to make this work is of course to leave the stable > > Cc tags out of the commit log, and to manually send an email when the > > commit has been accepted. However, this is subject to human error, > > and more specifically in this case, -my- human error. > > > > Hence the desire to have a Cc that doesn't actually send any email, > > but that is visible in mainline for the benefit of the scripts that > > handle the stable workflow. > > So a configuration variable that you can set once and forget, e.g. > > [sendemail] > blacklistedRecipients = stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > would not cut it, as you would _later_ want to send the e-mail once > the commit hits the mainline. Am I reading you correctly? This would actually work for me. Once the patch is accepted into mainline, I am done with it. So I should -never- send email to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, unless I am doing so manually, for example because I forgot to add the stable tag to a given commit. But in that case, I would just use mutt to forward the patch to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and git would not be involved. So as far as I can see, yes, it would be perfectly OK to unconditionally blacklist stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx within my git tree. That would be nice! > Or is it that nobody actually sends to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx address > manually, but some automated process scans new commits that hit the > mainline and the string "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is used as a cue > for that process to pick them up? I belive that something like this happens, but I don't know the details. I do know that it does not involve any of my local git trees. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html