Comment by tripple6

Having a massive major feature done as a single commit is evil. Merging two branches may conclude combining a unit of work, a major feature, a minor feature with the main branch (of course once the topic branch is merged to the upstream, and never vice versa [rebase in git terminology]). This is logically "a big commit" constructed from a concrete amount of small commits. Additionally, having small atomic commits also makes reverting a commit a trivial operation regardless the branch the commit was introduced in. Bisecting a range of small commits also makes finding a bad commit easier.