Always commit

He doesn't want to push at such a late hour. Give him a break.

Gotta have something to say in stand-up the next morning, otherwise your PM will assign you another task.
How many times did I push at 2am so I could go home, get to the freeway entrance, realized I fucked something up, sighed, and turned around to go back and fix it...
(This was like 1999, we didn't have access to Perforce from home).
After a year or so I realized I should just develop the willpower to check it in after sleeping on it.
- Oh god Perforce.

"No, wait, it's not what you think! There's a continuous integration system, a commit would've triggered a new build! It might have paged the oncall! Babe! The test suite has been flaky lately!"

Dude just stopped before he got to a logical stopping point where it would make sense to commit and push

That's actually not that rare when I work later than usual. Some stupid problem my brain is too fried to solve. Eventually I give up, feeling defeat for the whole evening and solve the problem in 10 mins the next morning. Get enough sleep, people.
- However, much research shows the hand banging against the wall period is required for you to achieve the morning breakthrough.
  The sleeping break is where your neurons form new connections based their activity yesterday. The “thinking hard” and the frustration is a required part of the morning epiphany.
  God I love programming.

The most common advice for git is

commit early. commit often

Do not however, follow the same advice for relationships.

I worked today and have O commits.

Well maybe if she had shown more interest in his pull requests, he wouldn't be off forking other repos!

I never push as last thing in the evening. I want to sleep over it and revise in the morning. --amend crew unite

You should be pushing feature branches as you work on them, so if you have a crash or something, your work isn't lost. Builds should be triggered from pull requests on the main branch, if triggered by anything. You should never push directly to main. At least that's my preference.
- Our ci/cd pipelines build also feature branches. I do push often, clean code. I don't push when I am tired enough that I can't trust my judgment that the code I am pushing is over my personal quality threshold. I add meaningful, concise commit messages. These are my rules.
- I make WIP branches only for that purpose, so I can push half done work and rework it the day after.
  This means a lot of history changes, but only in the WIP branch.
  When history is clean, I rebase the feature branch.
  Is this a good practice? I never found a better way to backup partial code.
What if while you sleep over it your laptop gets stolen or damaged? I'd rather push every small change than sit on it.
- I would lose max 3 hrs of work that I already know how to re do. I can live with that. I don't want to publish too much unfinished/unpolished work. There is always the chance someone might need the branch.
  Even if drafts under development, I like to publish something that reaches the standard of my "best" me, not my "Friday evening" me
- Don't you have continuous backups of your work laptop!?

git stash, girl

never commit on friday afternoon because you'll regret it on monday morning

ABC, always be committing.

W E

W A S

✨

commit history was how I determined when to do the nightly and big weekend backups for a place I admined at one point. It was so annoying that we had one developer that liked to stay up way late and one that like to get up way the fuck early. Thank god they were all colocated at that point in time. If they had different timezones I would have just had to say eff it and let them have some poorer preformance.

Honey, I was reviewing the new interns pull request. She was having a real hard time. We kept pushing and pulling until we eventually found ourselves getting that commit all over the codebase. Needless to say it won't happen again, it was a one night standing review.

No babe! I was busy doing review!