Yes, precisely; I got the eery feeling that TFA was yet another rant against rebase, and had it more or less confirmed by the end. The question ultimately beco

Yes, precisely; I got the eery feeling that TFA was yet another rant against rebase, and had it more or less confirmed by the end. The question ultimately becomes, what do you care about more: recording every little change that's ever made, so you have a record of every time someone sneezed, or do you want a more coherent narrative that can easily be bisected? To my mind, half the reason to have code reviews and continuous integration is to make sure that the project history is coherent and bisectable. Some might argue that non-pristine patches shouldn't be pushed in the first place, but let's be honest: we're all human, we all make mistakes, and this is (again) why we have code reviews and CI. I can understand having options, and I'll admit that Gerrit seems good enough to me, mostly because that's all I've used. But I'll counter that successive patches are recorded in the history of Gerrit, along with commentary and the back and forth. I can see the pros to having smaller isolated commits, but one best practice recommends writing the tests first (and having them fail), then write the feature; in this workflow, you would not want to push failing tests separately because it would break bisect, and the CI won't let it through anyway.