←back to thread

361 points mmphosis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
majorbugger ◴[] No.42167110[source]
I don't get the part about the small commits. To me a commit could be massive and that's alright, provided it introduces some major feature, while a fix could a one-liner. It really depends on the situation.
replies(4): >>42167213 #>>42167320 #>>42167335 #>>42167418 #
1. tripple6 ◴[] No.42167418[source]
Having a massive major feature done as a single commit is evil. Merging two branches may conclude combining a unit of work, a major feature, a minor feature with the main branch (of course once the topic branch is merged to the upstream, and never vice versa [rebase in git terminology]). This is logically "a big commit" constructed from a concrete amount of small commits. Additionally, having small atomic commits also makes reverting a commit a trivial operation regardless the branch the commit was introduced in. Bisecting a range of small commits also makes finding a bad commit easier.