I'm never sure when a project is far enough along to first commit to source control. I tend to put off committing until the project is 'framework-complete,' and I primarily commit features from then on. (I haven't done any personal projects large enough to have a core framework too big for this.) I have a feeling this isn't best practice, though I'm not sure what could go wrong.
Let's say, for example, I have a project which consists of a single code file. It will take about 10 lines of boilerplate code, and 100 lines to get the project working with extremely basic functionality (1 or 2 features). Should I first check in:
Also, what are the reasons to check in at a specific point?
You should commit as soon as you have a sensible "unit" complete.
What is a unit? It depends on what you're doing; if you're creating a Visual Studio project, for example, commit the solution right after its creation, even if it doesn't have anything in it.
From there on, keep committing as often as possible, but still commit only completed "units" (e.g. classes, configurations, etc); doing so will make your life easier if something goes wrong (you can revert a small set of changes) and will reduce the likelihood of conflicts.
FooSerializercan become one thing before you push helps with this. — Nov 23, 2012 at 00:28