I large agree with this, although with some provisos. First of all, sometimes it's most useful to take a step back and think about problems in a wider context.

I large agree with this, although with some provisos. First of all, sometimes it's most useful to take a step back and think about problems in a wider context. Often the biggest impact is from the code you don't write. There's really no way those kinds of contributions come out in any kind of metrics, but the team will sure remember them. More commonly, I prefer to commit often to aid my dev process but then rebase those commits into more cohesive units before merging. How chunky to make those final commits is somewhat a matter of taste, and probably shaped by the domain one is working in. Personally I like the finest grain possible without any build breakage, that way git-bisect still works, but hopefully there's still enough granularity to help with trickier merge/rebase scenarios around dependency upgrades and/or db migrations. But pardoning the digression, my point is the output seen by the rest of the team may not represent the original frequency of commits.