I make a commit whenever I want to save my progress, and rarely is it ever in a state that could even be called a "version" of the software that one would want to revert to, until my feature branch is complete and ready for code review.
At that point I have a much better idea of the scope of my changes, and I can revise them into a few coherent commits, rather than a mess of "WIP" commits that are not a useful history to keep.
> and I can revise them into a few coherent commits,
Why bother with this step at all? It's literally pointless and serves only to stroke an (IMO) silly aesthetic preference.
> rather than a mess of "WIP" commits that are not a useful history to keep.
I also disagree that WIP commits are not useful history. You might have explored 2 or 3 different abstractions to solve a problem, and picked one but it turned out to be the wrong one, and one of the others would have been a better choice, but now you've lost the history where you explored these options. Are you suggesting it's no loss to erase those other commits and the context around which you thought it wasn't a good choice at the time?
At that point I have a much better idea of the scope of my changes, and I can revise them into a few coherent commits, rather than a mess of "WIP" commits that are not a useful history to keep.