My career never has worked that way. I’m always juggling a series of changes that will be reviewed and merged in close succession but separately.
I keep everything in a single branch and have scripts to cherry pick revisions for merge requests.
git rebase --update-refs
Perforce can have multiple active CLs but they can only hold changes at the file level instead of hunks. That ends up even more maddening somehow.
You mean commits? You know that you can easily edit, reorder, squash, split, rename and reorganize them into separate branches before you push them anywhere, right?
What would be the suggested solution? Make two empty commits and the cherry pick change chunks into each? Then to shelve/stash a change you need to make a new branch and cherry pick back? Sounds really cumbersome compared to the current staging workflow.
If its actually single commit, auto-squashed branches behind the scenes, that's fine.
I'm sceptical about the whole "make a workspace for a feature, then code, then merge" workflow. For me in practice work often doesn't follow that linear path, I don't really know what feature will be finished and ready for committing until done.
One very surprising thing I have learnt about git is that it is intuitive for some people. Whereas maybe half of its users, including me, will never really get it, even after decades of use. So I am also skeptical about broad claims of intuitiveness.
I think the problem of creating a truly user friendly distributed version control system CLI is enormously challenging and requires a lot of deep thought if it is going to meet the needs of a wide range of software development practices. Looking at the DESIGN.md does not convince me they have gone deep enough in that analysis. It has a bit of a blase "it's just common sense that it should work like this!" and I'm pretty certain it's not so easy.