[nasretdinov]

I believe rerere is a local cache, so you'd still have to resolve the conflicts again on another machine. The recursive merge doesn't have this issue — the conflict resolution inside the merge commits is effectively remembered (although due to how Git operates it actually never even considers it a conflict to be remembered — just a snapshot of the closest state to the merged branches)

[Guvante]

Are people repeatedly handling merge conflicts on multiple machines?

If there was a better way to handle "I needed to merge in the middle of my PR work" without introducing reverse merged permanently in the history I wouldn't mind merge commits.

But tools will sometimes skip over others work if you `git pull` a change into your local repo due to getting confused which leg of the merge to follow.

[nasretdinov]

One place where it mattered was when I was working on a large PHP web site, where backend devs and frontend devs would be working in the same branch — this way you don't have to go back and forth to get the new API, and this workflow was quite unique and, in my mind, quite efficient. The branchs also could live for some time (e.g. in case of large refactorings), and it's a good idea to merge in the master branch frequently, so recursive merge was really nice. Nowadays, of course, you design the API for your frontend, mobile, etc, upfront, so there's little reason to do that anymore.

[Guvante]

Honestly if the tooling were better at keeping upstream on the left I wouldn't mind as much but IIRC `git pull` puts your branch on the left which means walking history requires analysing each merge commit to figure out where history actually is vs where a temporary branch is.

That is my main problem with merge, I think the commit ballooning is annoying too but that is easier to ignore.