I can understand that. But in my mind, if things are separate enough that I want multiple commits, then I would work on them separately. If a feature needs A, b

I can understand that. But in my mind, if things are separate enough that I want multiple commits, then I would work on them separately. If a feature needs A, but A needs B, then I would work on B, commit that and only then work on A. Sometimes working on A will cause me to change the committed B part a little, but that's fine. At the moment in time that I committed B it was a perfectly reasonable solution that I can revert back to. You know what, typing it out I can totally see why people do it the other way. A matter of personal preference probably.