oliverdavies.uk/content/node.4df98b71-9bff-4c1d-9636-5074e31a7ace.yml

uuid:
  - value: 4df98b71-9bff-4c1d-9636-5074e31a7ace
langcode:
  - value: en
type:
  - target_id: daily_email
    target_type: node_type
    target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
revision_timestamp:
  - value: '2025-05-11T08:59:58+00:00'
revision_uid:
  - target_type: user
    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
revision_log: {  }
status:
  - value: true
uid:
  - target_type: user
    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
title:
  - value: 'Be more selective'
created:
  - value: '2025-04-03T00:00:00+00:00'
changed:
  - value: '2025-05-11T08:59:58+00:00'
promote:
  - value: false
sticky:
  - value: false
default_langcode:
  - value: true
revision_translation_affected:
  - value: true
path:
  - alias: /daily/2025/04/03/selective
    langcode: en
body:
  - value: |
      <p>Another common Git issue I see is people using <code>git add .</code> to commit every change in every file they have locally.</p>

      <p>Similar to <a href="/daily/2025/04/02/commit">committing with <code>-m</code></a>, this seems to be a common in Git tutorials, but can have consequences due to unexpected changes being staged and committed.</p>

      <p>Maybe there are unrelated changes in the same file or other files have been changed that you don't want to commit yet.</p>

      <p>What if something was committed and pushed that caused the CI pipeline to fail or break production?</p>

      <p>At the least, it's going to add time and delay getting the intended changes live as someone will need to revert and fix the commits or address the changes in a code review.</p>

      <p>I'm very selective about what I include in each commit to keep my code stable and the commits easy to review and, if needed, revert.</p>

      <p>I always use <code>git add -p</code> to interactively stage changes from the command line or use keybindings in my Neovim configuration to add particular lines.</p>

      <p>I'll also review my staged changes before committing and the commit once it's been made using <code>git log --stat</code> to see what's included.</p>

      <p>Only once I'm sure my commits include only what I intended will I push them or submit them for review.</p>

              
    format: full_html
    processed: |
      <p>Another common Git issue I see is people using <code>git add .</code> to commit every change in every file they have locally.</p>

      <p>Similar to <a href="/daily/2025/04/02/commit">committing with <code>-m</code></a>, this seems to be a common in Git tutorials, but can have consequences due to unexpected changes being staged and committed.</p>

      <p>Maybe there are unrelated changes in the same file or other files have been changed that you don't want to commit yet.</p>

      <p>What if something was committed and pushed that caused the CI pipeline to fail or break production?</p>

      <p>At the least, it's going to add time and delay getting the intended changes live as someone will need to revert and fix the commits or address the changes in a code review.</p>

      <p>I'm very selective about what I include in each commit to keep my code stable and the commits easy to review and, if needed, revert.</p>

      <p>I always use <code>git add -p</code> to interactively stage changes from the command line or use keybindings in my Neovim configuration to add particular lines.</p>

      <p>I'll also review my staged changes before committing and the commit once it's been made using <code>git log --stat</code> to see what's included.</p>

      <p>Only once I'm sure my commits include only what I intended will I push them or submit them for review.</p>

              
    summary: null
field_daily_email_cta: {  }