My comment still seems relevant? Do frequent commits to correct mistakes imply more "value" than infrequent, but well tested, commits, or what? I don't think it is a reliable signal.
It isn't. $COMPANY I've worked for use commit counts as a metric, and you can bet all the money in your pockets they've skyrocketed with no change to actual output after they did.
LLM's make it even easier; "Commit all the outstanding code in as many commits as you can, as long as the tests pass after each one". (Sometimes that second clause is ommitted, too.)
I agree with you. Also, there is people (like me) that like to small commits (that don't break stuf) instead of huge mega commits. If I do something like small broken/wip commits, are only under my working bramch and I do a interactive rebase to merge on good cohesive commits.
