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