You say "two different work flows here" and I think perhaps a better way of considering this is as having multiple _kinds_ of history.

Most of the time, I don't have a clean path through a piece of work such that I can split it out into beautifully concise commits with perfect commit messages. I have WIP commits, messy changes, bad variable names, mistakes, corrections, real corrections, things that I expect everyone does. I commit them every one of them. This is my "private history" or my scratch work.

After I've gotten to the end and I'm satisfied that I've proven my change does what its supposed to do (i.e. tests demonstrate the code), I can now think about how I would communicate that change to someone else.

When I in this stage, it sometimes leads to updating of names now that I'm focussing on communicating my intention. But I figure out how to explain the end result in broad strokes, and subdivide where necessary.

From there, I build "public history" (leveraging all the git tricks). This yields pieces that are digestible and briefly illuminated with a commit message. Some pieces are easy to review at a glance; some take some focus; some are large; some are small.

But key is that the public history is digestible. You can have large, simple changes (e.g. re-namings, package changes) that, pulled out as a separate commit, can be reviewed by inspection. You can have small changes that take focus to understand, but are easily called out for careful attention in a single commit (and divorced from other chaff).

By having these two sorts of history, I can develop _fearlessly_. I don't care what the history looks like as I'm doing it, because I have the power (through my use of git) to construct a beautiful exposition of development that is coherent.

A PR being messy and cluttered is a choice. History can be _easily_ clarified. Anyone who uses git effectively should be able to take a moment to present their work more like framed artwork, and not a finger-painted mess stuck to the refrigerator.