> I think your issue might just be with understanding how version control is supposed to work. This has nothing to do with how it's "supposed to" work, and all

> I think your issue might just be with understanding how version control is supposed to work. This has nothing to do with how it's "supposed to" work, and all to do with the standards and constraints we're putting on ourselves here. No god has made any commandments about how thou shalt organize your commits. > I would have the same problem on any VCS ... commits are supposed to be small, isolated, single change commits It sounds to me like you've got some self-imposed issues. Nobody told you every commit has to be a "single change", unless you're very loose with what you mean by that. Sure, a commit should be a group of related functionality, such that you either want all of it or none of it. But it's perfectly fine for one commit to involve 20+ files. In fact one of the (many) things people hated about CVS was that you couldn't bundle changes like this! And if you're that concerned about commits being single changes, then you should never squash! It's hypocritical to say every commit should be tiny, but then squash them! > this makes the PR easier to understand and review I already addressed this. The problem is the 1:1 mapping between commits and PRs. There's no reason for that.