> On the other hand, I like having a history of the mess of how I actually implemented something, because it's more accurate and more detailed, both of which he

> On the other hand, I like having a history of the mess of how I actually implemented something, because it's more accurate and more detailed, both of which help when I go all DETECTIVE-MODE: ACTIVATE. The "mess of how things were implemented" has 0 value for your fellow coworkers when it comes to understanding the code and tracking down bugs. Each and every commit should as much as possible be "atomic" with a clear message describing what was done (not the how) and why. It is in the commit message that the developper should go on explaining their implementation decisions. What I picture is a feature branch with multiple small commits leading to the full implementation of the feature. When comes the time to rebase and merge in master, the merge commit could include a detailed explanation of the implementation choices that were made.