Post-build commits: good or bad?

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 ba开发者_运维百科ck 2K+ new lines of code between v1.0 and v1.1.

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.

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.