Post-assembly fixes: good or bad?

Question

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

---

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

Answer 1

No. A successful build does not mean a successful code change. Do you never check your code? If you had some kind of automatic unit testing, I could understand the question (although I would still recommend against it - I would not consider code verification until you tested its functionality yourself). But automatic fixation after a successful build is if you don't like your teammates or if they have access to weapons.

Answer 2

No. Where do meaningful messages come from? And links to question tracking items? How should an automated process know that a specific part of a job is completed?

With this process in place, your repository will degrade to the renowned IDE undo buffer.