3 ms·
Like I said, I’m not sold on git’s specific implementation. But breaking things into smaller, focused commits is—in my experience—a hallmark of good development
by stouset 5y ago
Like I said, I’m not sold on git’s specific implementation. But breaking things into smaller, focused commits is—in my experience—a hallmark of good development practice.
There should absolutely be better tooling around it, so that these piecemeal commits can be tested in isolation from one another. That’s a far better approach than just throwing up our hands and committing everything in the working tree, even if half of it has nothing to do with what’s intended.
- jefftk 5y agojj split?
- treadmill 5y agoHow do you even end up in that situation? If you start a new feature or bugfix having random local changes lying around, you are _already_ doing it wrong. Start a feature branch, do clean commits of the current state, test, push, review, merge.
- pjc50 5y ago> if half of it has nothing to do with what’s intended. Perhaps the focus should then be on making it easier to get that junk out of the working tree? Better stashing?