> You just never know when you have to revert a particular change and there's a sense of bliss knowing where you introduced a bug six days ago and only reverting that commit without going through the savagery of merge conflicts.
This is key for me: a good shape to aim for with a commit is one that can be easily reverted.
It's usually too hard, regardless of what your commits look like individually, to revert "just one buggy small bit" without breaking the rest of the new feature that was supported by that change, or re-introducing an old bug, or having other inconsistent resulting behavior. And "turn off the whole feature" is rarely desirable unless the bug is producing truly catastrophic behavior.
A roll-forward "just fix that bug" is the ideal case. A more complex "roll forward and make a kinda involved fix" is common too. But neither of those regress things from a user or consumer POV.