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?

  • 3
    No. Consider - why would they have the functionality to do so if it wasn't intended?
    – user40980
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 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
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 18:59
  • That probably then depends more on the project than on the process.
    – user40980
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 19:08
  • 3
    Don't worry about making a computer work harder. Do what makes things easier for people.
    – Daniel
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 19:25
  • Opinions will probably vary. I'd say it's like amending and force-pushing to change a commit message.
    – Phil Lello
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 20:53


Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.