"If you ever want to git-bisect your code-base to track down when you introduced a bug then you'll be very thankful that every commit is functional and passes your test-suite"
I agree that this property is very useful, but I disagree that it it is necessarily implied by the workflow as described in the article. By using "git add -p", he is constructing a tree that probably never actually existed during development - hence there is no guarantee that it works and passes the tests.
I strongly agree with you that a clean logical progression of commits is a good thing (especially for code review). However, making sure that each stage works and passes the tests takes extra discipline.
I agree that this property is very useful, but I disagree that it it is necessarily implied by the workflow as described in the article. By using "git add -p", he is constructing a tree that probably never actually existed during development - hence there is no guarantee that it works and passes the tests.
I strongly agree with you that a clean logical progression of commits is a good thing (especially for code review). However, making sure that each stage works and passes the tests takes extra discipline.