[hackrmn]

A linear graph doesn't do any developer in the team except Github (which isn't a developer in this context) any good because they have to pull down the graph at some point and when they have to fix something, although they will be able to track the blame to some commit in the middle of the graph, when they fix it and merge it it has to be squashed again (by hard or soft enforcement), which like I said negates much of the point with Git -- there's no usable history left.

Point being that branches aren't something to avoid, implying that complicated graphs are not to be avoided either, but embraced and knowing how Git works it's not a problem at all (unless your "bush" is accidentally complex in a bad way) -- except that if noone bothers to learn Git, it _becomes_ a problem, solved at the cost of the value that Git provides -- branching (not just ephemeral branching for your local convenience). Exacerbated by Github since everyone pulls from there -- meaning that production-grade code is not a true graph but a linked list, on average.

[nixon_why69]

> the value that Git provides -- branching (not just ephemeral branching for your local convenience).

I think this is the disconnect. I could see big libraries maintaining branches for each major release and I understand why linux does it. But if I'm maintaining FooService at work then I actually do just want a linear graph of all the commits that have been in production, in commit order.

[hackrmn]

If you want that, mandate developers use prefixes like `!fixup` and do `git rebase` _on your end_ -- why force upon everyone your ideas especially if it also squashes all development history? This also removes development friction because people can work with Git on their end the way they like without regard to some convention that can be avoided -- save for the "!fixup" thing which can be considered useful metadata.

[BigTTYGothGF]

I want development history to be squashed. I want to have a nice clean `git log` that I can look back thru and not see a mess of 'WIP' and 'fix' and other noise.

Unless you're saving every keystroke from your editor you're already squashing history, we're just arguing about degrees.

[nixon_why69]

I do enforce rebased, releasable merges to master on my end, I'm not campaigning to remove branching from git for everyone.

Just saying, in the common case, the simple approach actually is pretty good.