I think the discussion is valuable. I think adding those insights to a wiki 'Pitfalls' page or whatever is valuable. From the top of my head, the cases where I

I think the discussion is valuable. I think adding those insights to a wiki 'Pitfalls' page or whatever is valuable. From the top of my head, the cases where I'm looking at Git logs are: 1. Code Review. Most of the time I'm reviewing code is looking at a diff. But obviously one of "fix" and "actually fix" is redundant. A clean history also benefits if I want to focus in on one of the commits. 2. Annotation/Blame. If I'm debugging through some issue and looking at older changes, it's nice if coupled changes are in the same commit. A warts-and-all history has some advantages over rewriting git history (e.g. you could find patterns of where "actually fix" happens and try and improve those), but rewriting history makes the log a better communication tool.