Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Working 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.

Making smaller and atomic commits makes them more easily reversible.

Atomic 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com