If someone uses git commits like the save function of their editor and doesn't write messages intended for reading by anyone else, it makes sense to want to hide them

For other cases, you lose the information about why things are this way. It's too verbose to //comment on every like with how it came to be this way but on (non-rare in total, but rare per line) occasion it's useful to see what the change was that made the line be like this, or even just who to potentially ask for help (when >1 person worked on a feature branch, which I'd say is common)

▲

seba_dos1 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> If someone uses git commits like the save function of their editor

I use it like that too and yet the reviewers don't get to see these commits. Git has very powerful tools for manipulating the commit graph that many people just don't bother to learn. Imagine if I sent a patchset to the Linux Kernel Mailing List containing such "fix typo", "please work now", "wtf" patches - my shamelessness has its limits!

▲

Aachen 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like a lot of extra effort (save, add, commit, come up with some message even if it's a prayer to work now) only to undo it again later and create a patch or alternate history out of the final version. Why bother with the intermediate commits if you're not planning for it to be part of the history?

	▲	seba_dos1 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Git is a version control system. It does not care about what it versions. When I work on something, I commit often and use the commit graph as a undo tool on steroids. I can see what I tried, I can cherry-pick or revert stuff while experimenting, I can leave promising but unfinished stuff to look at later, or I can just commit to have a simple way to send stuff to CI, or a remote backup synced between machines. Once I'm done working on something, it's time to take a step back, look at the big picture, see how many changes my experiments have actually yielded, separate them, describe and decide whether they go to review together or split in some way, as sometimes working on a single thing requires multiple distinct changes (one PR with multiple commits), but sometimes working in a single session yields fixes for multiple unrelated issues (several PRs). Only then it gets presented to the reviewer. It just happens that I can do both these distinct jobs with a single tool.
	▲	thi2 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because I might want to go back to this current messy state but I don't want to commit it like this (hardcoded test strings, debug logs, cutted corners to see if something works, you name it). I simply commit something like "WIP: testing xy" and if its working and properly implemented i can squash/rebase/edit the commit message and force push it to my feature branch. Using a Git client like Gitkraken makes this incredibly easy, takes seconds. This way I can leverage version control without committing bogus states to the final PR.
	▲	skydhash 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If the team is using a PR workflow, the PR is a working place to produce one single commit. The individual commits are just timestamped changes and comments. Think of it as the equivalent of annotated diff in mailing list conversation.