> Yes. Let me just say I respectfully disagree with keeping the worse warts in the history. I think of git history (- in a perfect world - !) as a well-described stack of changes that allows to figure out what goes on and informs things such as a git bisect session.
Exactly. Cleaning up the code history can & should be a safe janitor-like activity carried out alongside the more messy development - I don't think it would need to be done by the original developers if their habit of working or time pressure means that they don't aggregate their commits, although that would be nice... All it would cause is a bit of extra work and require more branching.
From working in other projects, I have really come to appreciate clean atomic commits of bugfixes/functionality from those used to producing them like that.
There were other developers who didn't work like that.
In the end it if I recognise it as a habit of certain committers, it reduces the amount of attention I pay to their individual commits, since it's not possible to review as much in one go.
The projects still worked out fine with mixed working styles, though
