I agree but only because we don't expect people to be.
We expect clean, readable code so we develop engineers who can write that code.
If we expect clean, readable commit histories (like any project on the lore. https://lore.kernel.org/), we can develop engineers who produce those commit histories.
And tools that facilitate and encourage that behavior.
I’ve tried to do this but the defaults on GH means even if I stack 5 commits each doing atomic things nobody reviews it as anything other than a single patch. And if I split them into distinct PRs the last one looks like the giant PR. And we’re in now I’m shepherding 5 PRs.
Until we have tools or at the very least processes that encourage that behavior nobody will do it.
And don’t get me started on commit message display.
We expect clean, readable code so we develop engineers who can write that code.
If we expect clean, readable commit histories (like any project on the lore. https://lore.kernel.org/), we can develop engineers who produce those commit histories.
There's an adoption cost but IMHO it's worth it.