Programming

Assuming we are not talking about rewriting published history – and nobody should ever really be doing that anyway, when multiple commiters are using the same branch – I presume this is a situation where the dev has multiple, unpushed features that are WIP, each in their own local branch and building on each other.

Yep. There are also situations where rewriting history on branches under review is ok and desired - systems like gerrit work that way. But not github (you can push to an own work-in-progress branch on github, or even push to a branch with a merge request, but the github ui is not designed to review that).

Especially large organizations favour history that is easier to read and mostly linear. This is not needed for a mom and pop web project of a company with three developers.

In respect to the number of commits per feature - one commit per feature can be good. But often changes can be compartmentalized in doing preparatory refactoring, adding the feature, adding tests, and his can be easier to review because the scope of each commit is smaller.

For me this is a killer feature. For a start, we value atomic commits, where each commit does one small standalone thing. This makes review easier, as well as going back and looking at history to figure out why something was done the way it was. An easy to read history is critical at a large company. Commit messages are often muliline and long and describe the why and why not other alternatives that were considered.

But this also means your PR branch should have clean history, and editing said history is absolutely encouraged (even mandatory). We use azure devops and flawed as it is, the review UI handles this case well. I believe github is far worse at handling force pushes.

Review, design review and even CI runs takes time, so I often need to start building on top of a PR before it is fully finished and merged. Because I work in a sector where we have actual certifications (safety critical systems, think things like brake controllers, medical devices, etc) this means "move fast and break things" just isn't an option (nor should it be). This also slows down the PR workflow. Even after the C++ code built, you can expect a few hours to run the test suite with full physical simulations. And review can take days for larger and more critical changes.

So yes, many branches have more than one commit. And it is not uncommon to build upon yet to be merged branches (with the knowledge that small things will need to change as the followup is being rebased on top of changes of the original PR).