You might be surprised. Yours sounds like the attitude of someone who has not had the luxury of reviewing well-constructed commits. PRs with intentional commits permit both faster and deeper reviews—but alas, not everyone is so respectful of their reviewers’ time and energy.

> Yours sounds like the attitude of someone who has not had the luxury of

Sometimes when people speak rhetorically I'm baffled because I feel they literally do not understand what they're saying because they end up supporting an opposing rhetorical purpose. Yes you're 100% correct well-structured commits are a luxury that most of us do not have the privilege of experiencing because we work in high-pressure, deadlines driven environments where no points are awarded for beautifully crafted commit messages.

So in effect your argument is like "people that haven't had the luxury of a Michelin star restaurant don't appreciate amuse bouche and they should strive to rectify that".

Yeah, exactly. It seems like you understand just fine.

You claimed that “literally no one” has a different review workflow than yours. I do, and my experience is that clear commits make reviews both faster and deeper, which is very helpful specifically in a high-pressure, deadline driven environment where being slow and wrong is costly. You’re of course free to disagree and work differently.

You gotta go slow in order to go fast, and utterly useless commit messages and inappropriate commit sizes will bite you in the ass. They don't have to be the most beautiful commits ever, but ideally there's a minimum standard we can all live up to.

To use restaurants as the analogy, Michelin star-grade dining might be unavailable, and we might have to live the Olive Garden, or even McDonald's life. Regardless of which restaurant we're at though, if the food is moldy and gross, we shouldn't eat it.

Plenty of people do. At least at my work (and yes we squash PRs too). For some changes it's an easy way to make review way more sane.

For an illustration of the scale of this, search GitHub for 'commit by commit': https://github.com/search?q=%22commit+by+commit%22&type=pull... (2M results)

> that's gonna be squashed

Isn't your interpretation backwards in some cases? What I mean, is that _because_ you see the intermediate commits are garbage, you _then_ decide not to review the individual commits (because you are interested in the contribution anyway).

I certainly do care for the hobby FOSS projects I maintain, and bad commit messages + mega-commits won't fly at my day job.

Squash-merging has the advantages of making 1 PR == one commit with the PR ID in the commit message, sure, but it's unfortunately promotes bad Git hygiene (and works around it)