For my solo work I use Git commits to separate out and annotate different kinds of changes. So the desire for each commit to only mean one kind of change at a time has actually changed my approach to editing. Occasionally I will have an intensive reworking session where the sheer number of simultaneous changes breaks that rule but the idea that a meaningful commit message will cover that still guides my edit point.
I've had just one time when I embarked on more changes than I could manage in a single session, and so belatedly wished I'd set out a branch for that.
In practice, I make a distinction between the commits and the pushes (to Gitlab) because my full scale testing gets done in a different instance that first pulls the latest change from Gitlab.
So I might make a series of commits, but the push may wait until I have a new point to be tested.
Do note that as I'm old school, by "testing" I mean actually running the code on real stuff. I'm not into writing "test code".
FWIW in my "work" environment my code only sees git as a form of backup (or sometimes to share as example). I still can't see any way for git to have a role in "data script" coding. (There's much more I can say on that topic, but it is quite another topic.)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
For my solo work I use Git commits to separate out and annotate different kinds of changes. So the desire for each commit to only mean one kind of change at a time has actually changed my approach to editing. Occasionally I will have an intensive reworking session where the sheer number of simultaneous changes breaks that rule but the idea that a meaningful commit message will cover that still guides my edit point.
I've had just one time when I embarked on more changes than I could manage in a single session, and so belatedly wished I'd set out a branch for that.
In practice, I make a distinction between the commits and the pushes (to Gitlab) because my full scale testing gets done in a different instance that first pulls the latest change from Gitlab.
So I might make a series of commits, but the push may wait until I have a new point to be tested.
Do note that as I'm old school, by "testing" I mean actually running the code on real stuff. I'm not into writing "test code".
FWIW in my "work" environment my code only sees git as a form of backup (or sometimes to share as example). I still can't see any way for git to have a role in "data script" coding. (There's much more I can say on that topic, but it is quite another topic.)