upvote
Sure, but you are still supposed to clean things up to make the life of the reviewer easier.

There's an inherent tension between honest history and a polished 'lie' to make the reviewer's life easier.

reply
The WIP commits I initially recorded also don't necessarily existed as such in my file system and often don't really work completely, so I don't know why the commit after a rebase is any more a lie then the commit before the rebase.
reply
The "honest" historical record of when I decided to use "git commit" while working on something is 100% useless for anyone but me (for me it's 90% useless).

git tracks revisions, not history of file changes.

reply
Sounds easier (for everybody) to just use comments.
reply
You put past failed implementation in comments? That sounds like a nightmare. I rather only include a short description in the comment that can then link to the older implementation if necessary.
reply