Agreed, but after decomposing the change into logical commits, doublecheck that the project builds after each commit.

Or even better, set up a pre-commit hook so that happens automatically.

Stalling a commit for more than a third of a second is way too much.

Slightly-longer commits to have never-broken commits... hmmmmmm.

If you hit a full second, that's just right back to the svn days where there was just enough friction people wouldn't bother to commit until everything was completely done, then the commit would often be too big to easily describe why things were done in the commit message.

I don't think taking one second to commit is a problem. However, verifying that software builds typically takes a lot longer than a second.

Huh, I guess we have different expectations. I really don't mind a few seconds even to know I didn't totally break things in a commit.

Second-order effects. Longer to commit means less commits which means more grab-bag commits which means less useful commits.

Or even better, do that in CI.

As someone who works in small companies, and had to endure developers who were using gitlab as "offsite backup" or I guess "push-based 'does this compile?' workflow", please don't do this. CI minutes are rarely free, and for damn sure are not "glucose free". If you can't be bothered to run the local compilation step for your project, that is a wholly different code smell

Not for things like type / lint / formatting errors. Tests too if not too long.

I mean have them in the CI as well, but for sure have them as pre-commit hooks.

Also look up at any one of the "stacked branches" approaches (plenty of git extensions or tutorials that work natively with newer git versions).

For those still in bzr land, there used to be a wonderful "bzr-pipelines" plugin to enable seamlessly working on a set of interdependent changes.