In my organisation people regularly have 3K+ emails in their inbox. They're swamped and non-important email is ignored and lost. (Think big Corporation). Email ceases to be a useful medium in this environment.
For a while on our CI Server (eg Jenkins) we ran builds that you could view the status of on the Jenkins site. This drove an ownership culture - if you did a commit - you would watch it go through on the server. If you didn't watch it, and it broke and someone else saw it - they would simply revert your commit.
A consultant to our team came and said:
It's an industry standard that build failures generate email notifications. You need to configure your CI server to email people when the build fails.
This seemed a little strange, for something that is a configurable toggle on most CI servers. I'm happy for individual teams to say they want an email for their build, but to say everyone has to do it because it is an industry standard feels like they've misread our organisation's culture. (Fair call that we have a broken culture - but I'm just trying to change one thing at a time.)
My question is: Is there evidence to suggest that email notifications of build-breakage from a ci-server are industry standard?