On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 20:31, Ruslan Yakauleu wrote: > Hi > > If we use squash we will lose some context and occasionally, we need > multiple small features combined into one big release. We would rather > not mix it into one monolithic non-readable blob. The only context you lose is the point where your branch started, if that matters. (Later in the email you say that you rebase before you merge so apparently it does not matter to you.) To squash one single commit doesn’t make a “monolithic” commit—it is exactly as monolithic as the commit you started with. > For us, sometimes it is better to rebase something to make history more > accurate than squash everything into one commit. We can use squash only > for one story. No, squash one single commit. Not multiple. > Anyway, squash is a different feature. Same as rebase (of course we're > doing the rebase before merge to clarify history and to make some > regression tests) Squash and rebase are functionally identical in this case. And since you rebase before merge anyway it is identical to the flow of 1. Rebase before merge 2. Merge with your new option Except you don’t have to split it into two steps.
