[mkesper]

The modern workflow is just to let GitHub squeeze yor shit commits into one and then rebasing that.

[baq]

Hardly anything modern about it, but it's a way of keeping a somewhat sane history. Certainly better than merging 'fix' 'fix' 'fix comments' into master.

The thing is, we could have done better (and have been) since before git even existed.

[vvillena]

The "squash everything" mantra turns git commit history into a series of snapshots devoid of any logical notion about how code evolves.

Squashed commits are strictly worse than plain, non-fast-forwarded merges from rebased branches.

[baq]

Depends on your commits. If it’s untested noise I’d much rather they’re squashed so bisect doesn’t meander in trash.

[vvillena]

Bisecting with --first-parent takes care of this.

[cmrdporcupine]

There are legit reasons to have a series of commits within one PR, and rebase and merge them as is, and use amend/fixup and force pushes to maintain them cleanly.

It's not my favourite process, but...