Amusingly it actually makes you less of a "purist" to not modify commits. Git was created by Linus Torvalds to support Linux Kernel development
The Linux Kernel is heavily built around reviewing each commit individually via patchsets sent as emails and rewriting history to make it cleaner.
Git history is incredibly valuable if its curated, at my previous employer we used Gerrit and pretty much every change would have a well crafted multi-line commit message that explained what was being changed and most importantly _why_. If I wanted to understand why a bit of the codebase had been authored in a particular way it was incredibly easy because I could just git blame the line and there'd be a detailed commit message explaining the rationale.
In the Pull Request world I do agree with what you say - but only if you squash merge. Commits that say "fix typo" or "oops" or "wip" aren't useful long term.
The Linux Kernel is heavily built around reviewing each commit individually via patchsets sent as emails and rewriting history to make it cleaner.
Git history is incredibly valuable if its curated, at my previous employer we used Gerrit and pretty much every change would have a well crafted multi-line commit message that explained what was being changed and most importantly _why_. If I wanted to understand why a bit of the codebase had been authored in a particular way it was incredibly easy because I could just git blame the line and there'd be a detailed commit message explaining the rationale.
In the Pull Request world I do agree with what you say - but only if you squash merge. Commits that say "fix typo" or "oops" or "wip" aren't useful long term.