A well laid out history of logical changes makes reviewing complicated change sets easier. Rather than one giant wall of changes, you see a series of independent, self contained, changes that can be reviewed on their own.

Having 25 meaningless “wip” commits does not help with that. It’s fine when something is indeed a work in progress. But once it’s ready for review it should be presented as a series of cleaned up changes.

If it is indeed one giant ball of mud, then it should be presented as such. But more often than not, that just shows a lack of discipline on the part of the creator. Variable renames, whitespace changes, and other cosmetic things can be skipped over to focus on the meat of the PR.

From my own experience, people who work in open source and have been on the review side of large PRs understand this the best.

Really the goal is to make things as easy as possible for the reviewer. The simpler the reviews process, the less reviewer time you’re wasting.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is your approach which is incompatible with others. I'm not the same person you were replying to but I want the history of a branch to be coherent, not a hot mess of meaningless commits. I do my best to maintain my branches such that they can be merged without squashing, that way it reflects the actual history of how the code was written.

> Why do you care about the history of a branch?

Presumably, a branch is a logical segment of work. Otherwise, just push directly master/trunk/HEAD. It's what people did for a long time with CVS and arguably worked to some extent. Using merge commits is pretty common and, as such, that branch will get merged into the trunk. Being able to understand that branch in isolation is something I've found helpful in understanding the software as a whole.

> Caring about the history of a branch is weird, I think your approach is just not compatible with how people work.

I get you disagree with me, but you could be less dismissive about it. Work however you want -- I'm certainly not stopping you. I just don't your productivity to come at the expense of mine. And, I offered up other potential (and IMHO, superior) solutions from both developer and system tools.

I suppose what type of project you're working on matters. The "treat git like a versioned zip file" using squashed merges works reasonably well for SaaS applications because you rarely need to roll anything back. However, I've found a logically structured history has been indispensable when working on long-lived projects, particularly in open source. It's how I'm able to dig into a 25 year old OSS tool and be reasonably productive with.

To the point I think you're making: sure, I care what changed, and I can do that with `diff`. But, more often if I'm looking at SCM history I'm trying to learn why a change was made. Some of that can be inferred by seeing what other changes were made at the same time. That context can be explicitly provided with commit messages that explain why a change was made.

Calling it incompatible with how people work is a pretty bold claim, given the practice of squash merging loads of mini commits is a pretty recent development. Maybe that's how your team works and if it works for you, great. But, having logically separate commits isn't some niche development practice. Optimizing for writes could be useful for a startup. A lot of real world software requires being easy to maintain and a good SCM history shines there.

All of that is rather orthogonal to the point I was trying to add to the discussion. We have better tools at our disposal than running `git commit` every 15 minutes.