> I don’t need to see your thought process as you get something wrong three times then spend another three commits fighting with the linter all before you prese

> I don’t need to see your thought process as you get something wrong three times then spend another three commits fighting with the linter all before you present your final thesis. I just need to see what you’ve finally settled on. I don't think parent is advocating for a commit to stay the same before a merge. You can simply clean up those WIP commits via rebase + fixups and put them in a coherent order and structure (i.e. make them atomic as the article mentions). This and rebase-merge workflows make git history a delight to work with.