Basically, yes. It does mean more work for you, for the benefit of the reviewers of the code. Arguably, it is more important to optimise for the readers of the

Basically, yes. It does mean more work for you, for the benefit of the reviewers of the code. Arguably, it is more important to optimise for the readers of the change (many people, spread over time) than for the writer (one person, once). If you use, say, git, you might commit every single, tiny change separately, on a private (local) branch; then use `git rebase --interactive` to reorder/merge the commits as necessary. This is the easiest way I have found, but it still involves more work. If you wanted to take it further, you could have your editor automatically commit on every save, with a post-commit hook that takes your changes into a staging area, compiles/tests, and provides a report for each commit.