Yep, I agree. In my ideal world, everybody (including me) would have pristine commits that are broken up logically. There wouldn't be small commits created as p

Yep, I agree. In my ideal world, everybody (including me) would have pristine commits that are broken up logically. There wouldn't be small commits created as part of code review to fix things up based on feedback. You'd just have a single "Add feature X" or "Fix bug Y". However, it's an imperfect world and there are trade-offs. It's hard to train people to do things the right way, and then policing when they do it the wrong way or putting roadblocks in place to make them do it the right way takes energy, and often the benefit is minor. It really depends on how frequently you pore through your history to find an offending bug and a whole bunch of other team policy that isn't directly related to git commits. I used to spend a lot of energy rebasing so that I could have a beautiful history, but honestly it hasn't benefited me that much. I still rebase, but I'm not so strict about it on my commits, nor others. I'd rather spend my focus and energy elsewhere. Just do what the team is comfortable with and be flexible.