2 ms·
I always find it a small miracle that you can yank an individual git commit out of a program, and end up with a working program. If I commit anything, follow-u
by hyperman1 4y ago
I always find it a small miracle that you can yank an individual git commit out of a program, and end up with a working program. If I commit anything, follow-up commits quickly make the original quickly a hard requirement.
Maybe it is a sign of bigger and more stable source code, that individual commits influence each other less.
- eptcyka 4y agoWorking on new, small bits of software often implies that a single commit will be more relevant to the rest of the codebase. The more code there is, the less any one particular line, on average, would matter.
- vocram 4y agoMaking smaller and atomic commits makes them more easily reversible.
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoAtomic meaning they can be reverted on their own; I'm sure plenty of people make the mistake of making small commits, but not atomic commits. If your git history looks like a work log, you're not writing atomic commits. And people should get comfortable with git commit --amend and interactive rebase.