Sure, if you're they type to micro commit, you can squash your branch and clean it up before merging. We don't need a dozen "fixed tests" commits for context.

But in practice, I have seen multiple teams with the policy of squash merging every branch with 0 exceptions. Even going so far as squash merging development branches to master, which then lumps 20 different changes into a single commit. Sure, you can always be a git archeologist, check out specific revisions, see the original commits, and dig down the history over and over, to get the original context of the specific change you're looking into. But that's way fucking more overhead than just looking at an unmanipulated history and seeing the parallel work going on, and get a clue on context at a glance at the network graph.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Using curated commits to optimize for pull request reviewability is highly underrated. Liberal use of interactive rebasing to 'tell a story', essentially.

[–] andioop@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

you’re they type to micro commit

Thanks for a much shorter and better way to explain this tendency of mine and why I rebase a lot, yoinking this phrase.