Very well put. This is the work flow which has worked best for me over different teams. An opposite which I could accept is asking people to carefully rebase t

Very well put. This is the work flow which has worked best for me over different teams. An opposite which I could accept is asking people to carefully rebase their drafts, but I see it as a higher effort with a bigger risk of screwing up, with a dose of bikeshedding an additional topic, the commit history: "why do you split in 5 commits when 2 would be enough?" I guess you can keep the drafts if you don't delete feature branches. But I don't see it as extremely useful, unless it's a very talented individual AND very methodical with his commit history.