Post-build commits: good or bad?

Question

Is it a good policy to automate source control commits following successful builds?

---

Edit: I'm asking because I want more frequent, incremental commits between versions that make it easier to find the point where a bug was introduced than rolling back 2K+ new lines of code between v1.0 and v1.1.

Answer 1

No. A successful build does not imply a successful code change. Do you never test your code? IF you had some sort of automated unit testing, I could understand the question (although I would still recommend against it - I would not consider a code change tested until you verified its functionality yourself). But an automated commit after a successful build - not if you like your team mates, or if they have access to weapons.

Answer 2

No. Where would the meaningful commit messages come from? And the references to issue tracker items? How is the automated process supposed to know that a particular bit of work is complete?

With such a process in place, your repository would degrade to a glorified IDE undo buffer.