Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-28907

option to treat merge commiters as regular commiters

      Note: This request initially posted on stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/q/20101472/937363
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Users A and B each make modifications (on different feature branches) to a particular repo.

      User A merges changes into staging branch. Jenkins builds the staging branch, and succeeds.

      User C (release manager for User B team) merges User B's changes into staging branch. However, something in the merge goes wrong and isn't noticed, such as a conflict that wasn't resolved properly.

      Jenkins builds the staging branch, and fails because of the bad merge.

      Users A and B are notified of the build failure, because their code was part of the merge, even though their changes were not at fault. User C never gets a failure notice, even though his bad merge was what broke the build.

      There should be a way to:

      1. Cause Jenkins to treat merge commits as changes? (There is the very real possibility that code will actually be modified during a merge!)
      2. Notify User C (as the merge committer) along with users A and B?
        We are using the Git and Email-ext plugins for Jenkins.
        • I think this would be handled automatically by the previous
      3. Set option to only show the merge committer in the case of a merge
        • There are examples where we have a platform merge team who merges in from one stable branch to another. In that case, it is always the merger's responsibility to handle it correctly, so no other committers should be notified

          [JENKINS-28907] option to treat merge commiters as regular commiters

          Matt Gately created issue -
          Matt Gately made changes -
          Description Original: Note: This request initially posted on stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/q/20101472/937363

          Users A and B each make modifications (on different feature branches) to a particular repo.

          User A merges changes into staging branch. Jenkins builds the staging branch, and succeeds.

          User C (release manager for User B team) merges User B's changes into staging branch. However, something in the merge goes wrong and isn't noticed, such as a conflict that wasn't resolved properly.

          Jenkins builds the staging branch, and fails because of the bad merge.

          Users A and B are notified of the build failure, because their code was part of the merge, even though their changes were not at fault. User C never gets a failure notice, even though his bad merge was what broke the build.

          There should be a way to:

          # Cause Jenkins to treat merge commits as changes? (There is the very real possibility that code will actually be modified during a merge!)
          # Notify User C (as the merge committer) along with users A and B?
          We are using the Git and Email-ext plugins for Jenkins.
          #* I think this would be handled automatically by the previous
          # Set option to only show the merge committer in the case of a merge
          #* There are examples where we have a platform merge team who merges in from one stable branch to another. In that case, it is always the merger's responsibility to handle it correctly, so no other committers should be notified
          New: Note: This request initially posted on stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/q/20101472/937363
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Users A and B each make modifications (on different feature branches) to a particular repo.

          User A merges changes into staging branch. Jenkins builds the staging branch, and succeeds.

          User C (release manager for User B team) merges User B's changes into staging branch. However, something in the merge goes wrong and isn't noticed, such as a conflict that wasn't resolved properly.

          Jenkins builds the staging branch, and fails because of the bad merge.

          Users A and B are notified of the build failure, because their code was part of the merge, even though their changes were not at fault. User C never gets a failure notice, even though his bad merge was what broke the build.

          There should be a way to:

          # Cause Jenkins to treat merge commits as changes? (There is the very real possibility that code will actually be modified during a merge!)
          # Notify User C (as the merge committer) along with users A and B?
          We are using the Git and Email-ext plugins for Jenkins.
          #* I think this would be handled automatically by the previous
          # Set option to only show the merge committer in the case of a merge
          #* There are examples where we have a platform merge team who merges in from one stable branch to another. In that case, it is always the merger's responsibility to handle it correctly, so no other committers should be notified
          R. Tyler Croy made changes -
          Workflow Original: JNJira [ 163771 ] New: JNJira + In-Review [ 181367 ]
          Mathew Sprehn made changes -
          Assignee Original: Nicolas De Loof [ ndeloof ] New: Mathew Sprehn [ matsprehn ]
          Mathew Sprehn made changes -
          Component/s New: git-client-plugin [ 17423 ]
          Mark Waite made changes -
          Component/s Original: git-client-plugin [ 17423 ]
          Mark Waite made changes -
          Assignee Original: Mathew Sprehn [ matsprehn ]

            Unassigned Unassigned
            mbgately Matt Gately
            Votes:
            15 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            16 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated: