When it comes to commits, single feature / scoped commits are quality. So this git history is actually underwhelming if the author is full time. This is a good read.
That article also mentions squashing merges though, which would lower the contribution count by a lot unless there’s a GitHub setting to have separate branch commits tracked that I’m missing out on.
If I ever saw a Github commit history like that, I’d be concerned.
Quality over quantity, hackers.
When it comes to commits, single feature / scoped commits are quality. So this git history is actually underwhelming if the author is full time. This is a good read.
I’m familiar with and practice atomic committing habits. Still seems excessive.
Mine looks a little like that. It’s my job though. Everything’s on GitHub.
That article also mentions squashing merges though, which would lower the contribution count by a lot unless there’s a GitHub setting to have separate branch commits tracked that I’m missing out on.