GitHub could _drastically_ improve this workflow by allowing a collaborative commit message to be part of the review. That way the PR can use small commits, and

GitHub could _drastically_ improve this workflow by allowing a collaborative commit message to be part of the review. That way the PR can use small commits, and the main history can use atomic commits with an agreed-upon message useful for future code archaeology. Gerrit gets this correct. I and several others I'm aware of spoke with a product team at GitHub about this over a year ago, but nothing seems to have come of it. In the meantime, my default is for any repository I maintain to have atomic commits with fully descriptive commit messages only. The kind of use case described in the article is not, to my mind, a good reason for the purpose of a commit message - describing for future maintainers _why_ a change has been made - to be defeated.