[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
   
   
   
   

---
Originally reported by mbgately, imported from: option to treat merge commiters as regular commiters

• status: Open
  
• priority: Major
  
• component(s): git-plugin
  
• label(s): git, plugin, scm
  
• resolution: Unresolved
  
• votes: 15
  
• watchers: 16
  
• imported: 2025-12-02
  

Raw content of original issue

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