What is considered good practice when committing to the repository?

Committing small, consistent pieces of work is considered good practice when working with a repository. This approach promotes several positive outcomes in software development.

Firstly, frequent commits allow for a more straightforward tracking of changes, making it easier to pinpoint when a specific change was introduced and to identify the reasoning behind it. With small, manageable changes, it's easier to understand the context and impact of each commit, facilitating better collaboration among team members.

Secondly, it enhances the ability to rollback changes if necessary. If a small change introduces a bug or issue, reverting to the previous state is simpler than if a large batch of changes were committed all at once. This is particularly beneficial in maintaining stability in the codebase.

Furthermore, small, consistent commits also encourage regular updates to the project documentation and comments in the code, promoting clearer communication within the team. This documentation becomes invaluable for ongoing maintenance and for onboarding new team members, as they can easily understand the specific changes made without sifting through large sets of modifications.

In contrast, committing large batches of work can obscure the individual contributions, making it challenging to trace bugs and understand the evolution of the code. Similarly, committing only final versions limits the visibility of development progress and may hinder collaborative efforts, while committing work without