[bigstrat2003]

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is your approach which is incompatible with others. I'm not the same person you were replying to but I want the history of a branch to be coherent, not a hot mess of meaningless commits. I do my best to maintain my branches such that they can be merged without squashing, that way it reflects the actual history of how the code was written.

[ltbarcly3]

This is not how code is actually written.

[hxtk]

It's how code is written in Google (including their open-source products like AOSP and Chromium), the ffmpeg project, the Linux Kernel, Git, Docker, the Go compiler, Kubernetes, Bitcoin, etc, and it's how things are done at my workplace.

I'm surprised by how confident you are that things simply aren't done this way considering the number of high-profile users of workflows where the commit history is expected to tell a story of how the software evolved over time.

[ltbarcly3]

"It's how code is written" then you list like the 6 highest profile, highest investment premier software projects on Earth like that's just normal.

I'm surprised by how confident you are when you can only name projects you've never worked on. I wanted to find a commit of yours to prove my point, but I can't find a line of code you've written.