> Do you constantly "rewind"? E.g. getting rid of stuff like "try if this works" type commit messages, after you've finished doing whatever experimentation you need to do?
Not constantly, but will clean up the local/personal branch history before creating a PR with a rebase. Change some messages, maybe change up where some of the code is committed or even change the order if that makes more sense than the way it actually happened. It's a pretty quick and easy task to do when you get use to it.
> I, for example, dislike having to track any small change I have made and commit it. I like committing larger parts which contain a functionality.
This is pretty much the suggested way by the creator of git too. A commit should contain the necessary changes for one bit of functionality/bug fix. This imo makes the history pretty neat and tidy, while at the same time making it easy to search through with blame/bisect whenever you need to. Giant commits (multiple functionality/whole project/extension squashed into one) makes both of those hard to use and in some cases pretty much useless outside of finding who did it and hope they still work at the company and remember their state of mind when they did the change.
Not constantly, but will clean up the local/personal branch history before creating a PR with a rebase. Change some messages, maybe change up where some of the code is committed or even change the order if that makes more sense than the way it actually happened. It's a pretty quick and easy task to do when you get use to it.