My impression as a grumpy person is that this article mixes the cause and the consequence. The main argument seems to be "shorter commits are less likely to ha

My impression as a grumpy person is that this article mixes the cause and the consequence. The main argument seems to be "shorter commits are less likely to have bugs and are merged faster, so if we split a 900-lines commit into 9 100-lines commits, then our codebase will be better". But the issue with shorter commits is that they also tend to be less critical - splitting a large commit into smaller chunks is generally a good idea, but the complexity still has to go somewhere. Yes, structuring your commit in shorter chunks is helpful because it forces you to better think about what you're doing but that's a correlation, not causation. I can be convinced that this silver bullet actually helps, but for that I'd need a before-and-after comparison of using the tool.