> How valuable is to have 20 commits of "fix this error" , "fix the fix of the error", "revert all fixes", "real fix".... etc? I'd argue a PR with many commits

> How valuable is to have 20 commits of "fix this error" , "fix the fix of the error", "revert all fixes", "real fix".... etc? I'd argue a PR with many commits such as these, conveys little no no useful information, when the actual change is 1-3 LOC. I'm not saying that I wouldn't broadly discourage the worst of that but most people do not commit every changed line so it is rarely a problem in practice. What does become a problem are people who insist on "clean history", "re-order these commits", etc etc at PR stage when you both agree the functional problem is done/fixed and now the negotiation has moved on to your git history. I do contract work (read: move around a lot) and this social anti-pattern comes up very often. Usually one guy who's into it throwing his weight around. Would it surprise you to learn there is a large crossover because people who do this and people who go forensic on other cosmetic stuff: whitespace, syntax, etc?! :)