It's also extraordinarily cluttered, and it really gets in the way when someone later want to do a 'git bisect' to track down when a bug was introduced.

When I'm working I do frequent little commits just to capture and back up my broken stream-of-thought experiments. None of those are going to be relevant to people who work with this code in the future; how does it benefit them to impose my haphazard process on them?

Of course if there's a way to break up my final commit into more meaningful smaller commits, I do that rather than one monolithic commit.

For example if I clean up some whitespace issues, add some new comments to old code, and implement a new feature, I'll put those in three separate commits even if I originally did the entire change at once. In this case you'll see more commits in the public history than I originally had.

Or if I check in a new version of some external library, add an API call that uses it along with its tests, and add UI code that calls the API, those may be separate commits in that order.

My goal is to make the public history useful to future developers.