Along similar lines, I've adopted a hyper-frequent commit pattern in git. I do a bunch of meaningless micro-commits as I'm making progress, and then rewrite them all into one or two meanginful commits once I've reached a working state of whatever I was trying to do.
I find it's helpful for not losing work / easily backing up if as I'm going along I realize I want to change approach.
(For the micro commit I have a git command "git cam" that just commits all changes with the message "nt". Then once I'm ready to do a "real commit", I have "git wip" which rolls back all the nt commits but leaves them in checkout; then I can make one or two "real" commits.)
I wonder if dura would be even better, or if the commit frequency would end up being too fine-grained and obscure?
I find it's helpful for not losing work / easily backing up if as I'm going along I realize I want to change approach.
(For the micro commit I have a git command "git cam" that just commits all changes with the message "nt". Then once I'm ready to do a "real commit", I have "git wip" which rolls back all the nt commits but leaves them in checkout; then I can make one or two "real" commits.)
I wonder if dura would be even better, or if the commit frequency would end up being too fine-grained and obscure?