Re: Groups of commits

[Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> 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.

Just to add to the "merge in topic branches" idea - if you find that
the commits are trivially fast-forwardable, you can still add a short
note/cover letter with

  git merge --no-ff -m "Added in foo's work" <branch/commit>

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan