I wouldn't trust "commit counts." The quality and content of a "commit" can vary widely between developers. I have one guy on my team who commits only working code that has been thoroughly tested locally, another guy who commits one line changes that often don't work, only to be followed by fixes, and more fixes. His "commits" have about 1/100th of the value of the first guy.
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.
