It's funny -- I think this is where some of the conflict lies. With git, you can do a bunch of commits with crappy comments and then, when you are ready to publicize it (push, whatever), you can use rebase to pretty up your commit history. In other words, I take the analogy of "crappy commits" to "crappy code" a step further: the commit history is another document that is to be presented to other developers; make it helpful!