I'm talking about very small changes such as spelling or meaningless syntax fixes. After committing a new pull request, sometimes automated checks are executed. Which is one reason I'm wondering if it's wasteful to do and commit minor changes on github directly as opposed to doing it all locally and only committing occasionally.

The thing is though, that I might make some very minor corrections and then not do anything for a long time, so it makes no sense to leave them uncommitted. On the other hand, committing every couple of minutes seems to be overly compulsive and wasteful if checks are triggered each time, and activity logs get cluttered.

Also, is it reasonable at all to just use the github website if I'm not very involved in a project?

closed as primarily opinion-based by user40980, Robert Harvey, user22815, gnat, amon Mar 14 '16 at 10:12

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    No. Consider - why would they have the functionality to do so if it wasn't intended? – user40980 Mar 10 '16 at 18:53
  • Well, telling apart insignificant changes in grammar from more meaningful updates might not always be so simple. But it might still be bad practice to do "too little". I wouldn't know since I'm pretty new to open source development. – uberlaufer Mar 10 '16 at 18:59
  • That probably then depends more on the project than on the process. – user40980 Mar 10 '16 at 19:08
  • 3
    Don't worry about making a computer work harder. Do what makes things easier for people. – Daniel Mar 10 '16 at 19:25
  • Opinions will probably vary. I'd say it's like amending and force-pushing to change a commit message. – Phil Lello Mar 10 '16 at 20:53

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.