I do get why it's easier to commit for 30min rather than 1+ hour but when I code I can't be efficient and productive if I don't have enough time, and 30min is clearly not enough to me (sometimes I try to work on a side project during my 1 hour lunch break, even then I don't have enough time to actually DO something).
Obviously you can't get a big chunk of work fully done, but that's not necessarily required. The (not so small) trick there, is to split things up sufficiently that you're able to get an atomic amount of work done in 30-45 min (for myself, I used that timeframe), in such a way that you can get a git commit done which improves your project.
Again from personal experience, the results of 5x 30min are of higher quality than e.g. 1x 2.5h, because you have to think about it beforehand, and you can't help but also think about it while not actually being busy coding.
Though, as with most things, YMMV.
Yes, I realize that not splitting things up (well, not enough at least) seems to be my main issue here, I'll try to learn how to be better at that.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.