From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Poole Subject: Re: Groups of commits Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:15:05 -0400 Message-ID: <87sk6ge312.fsf@troilus.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git List To: John Tapsell X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 28 04:15:17 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6wo0-0000EZ-SM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:15:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751698Ab0D1CPK (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:15:10 -0400 Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.75]:54340 "HELO na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751007Ab0D1CPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:15:08 -0400 Received: from source ([209.85.221.183]) by na3sys009aob105.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS9eaKwRAGmcOmTXiHH9R/gIdW8tz2LzX@postini.com; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:15:08 PDT Received: by mail-qy0-f183.google.com with SMTP id 13so17985412qyk.18 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.52.164 with SMTP id i36mr2042208qag.147.1272420907328; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from graviton.troilus.org (pool-72-83-66-147.washdc.east.verizon.net [72.83.66.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm3312317qyk.15.2010.04.27.19.15.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:15:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (John Tapsell's message of "Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:59:44 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org John Tapsell writes: > Hi all, > > In my work place, we have a lot of strict rules to get something > committed. The code has to pass against a large test suite, it has to > be tested on different hardware, and so on. > > The problem is that it forces everyone to have one single large > commit for a week's work. All the intermediate stages get squashed > and that history forever lost. > > It would be nice to have a commit in the repository, treated as a > single commit for all purposes, but then be able to split it into > multiple commits if necessary. > > Any ideas? Isn't that what topic branches are for? When development is done on a short-lived branch (hopefully one with a descriptive name), the only commit that needs to go through that process is the merge onto the integration branch. Michael Poole