John Tapsell writes:

quoted text
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html