[emerged]

I’m somewhat self conscious about the sheer volume of commits that I make. The reason there are so many is that I want each atomic unit to be distinguishable.

Part of that is motivated by the will to save often in case something goes wrong. Part is to let continuous integration validate with high granularity. Part is to allow for binary search on revision history to reproduce rare bugs and isolate the specific change which introduced it.

These considerations may explain the correlation with “top performing” - although for what it’s worth I try to make commits which remove more lines of code than they add whenever possible.

[rendall]

Same. I got self conscious when a co-worker mentioned it once, but at my most productive I commit when I complete a unit of thought, usually at a pace of 3-10 commits per hour.

Edit: I do think the considered criticisms of this piece are valid, especially the idea that when a correlated measurement (e.g LOC) of a thing (e.g productivity) becomes rewarded, it blows that correlation as everyone starts optimizing the measurement rather than for that thing itself.