[skydhash]

I get your POV, but I’ve always considered that long-lived branches in the canonical repo (the one in the forge) other than the main one should be directly related to deployable artifacts. Anything else should be short-lived.

There can be experiment on the side that warrants your approach, but the amounts of merge going back and forth would make this hard to investigate (especially when blaming) I would prefer to have one single commit with a message that describe every contribution.

[seba_dos1]

Unlike merge strategies, where squash-to-merge is almost always motivated by someone not knowing how to use the tools well, branching strategies can be very diverse and project-dependent for very good reasons. Some projects have to maintain multiple versions of the thing they produce simultaneously, others don't. Some projects effectively maintain a patchset on top of some external upstream project, some are the upstream that's being forked by others - and some are somewhere in-between. Sometimes you break half the world to slowly fix it afterwards in a long running refactor, often you don't. Often there's a single canonical repo where all work happens, sometimes there's not. There's no genuine one-size-fits-it-all, but fortunately, git is very flexible there.

Blame, bisect etc. work well with histories with lots of back-and-forth merging, as can be easily seen in Linux, so blaming is definitely not a reason not to do it this way if your project calls for it otherwise. Perhaps one issue with such workflow is that some popular review tools aren't exactly great at letting you review merge conflict resolutions.