I don't care about backing up unfinished hobby projects, I just write/test until arbitrarily sharing, or if I'm completely honest, potentially abandoning it. I may not 'git init' for months, let alone make any commits or push to any remotes.
Reasoning: skip SCM 'cost' by not making commits I'd squash and ignore, anyway. The project lifetime and iteration loop are both short enough that I don't need history, bisection, or redundancy. Yet.
Point being... priorities vary. Not to make a judgement here, I just don't think the number of commits makes for a very good LLM purity test.
you should push to a private working branch- and freqently. But, when merging your changes to a central branch you should squash all the intermediate commits and just provide one commit with the asked for change.
Enshrining "end of day commits", "oh, that didn't work" mistakes, etc is not only demoralizing for the developer(s), but it makes tracing changes all but impossible.
bravetraveler|11 days ago
Reasoning: skip SCM 'cost' by not making commits I'd squash and ignore, anyway. The project lifetime and iteration loop are both short enough that I don't need history, bisection, or redundancy. Yet.
Point being... priorities vary. Not to make a judgement here, I just don't think the number of commits makes for a very good LLM purity test.
freakynit|11 days ago
I use git as backup and commit like every half an hour... but make sure to give proper commit message once a certain milestone have been reached.
Im also with the author on this on squashing all these commits into a new commit and then pushing it in one go as init commit before going public.
unknown|11 days ago
[deleted]
butvacuum|11 days ago
Enshrining "end of day commits", "oh, that didn't work" mistakes, etc is not only demoralizing for the developer(s), but it makes tracing changes all but impossible.
panzi|9 days ago