This is awfull because it destroys information. A feature branch needs cleaning up before publishing. These bug and typo fixes needs to be squashed in the bran

This is awfull because it destroys information. A feature branch needs cleaning up before publishing. These bug and typo fixes needs to be squashed in the branch, but the history should preserve a sequence of commits corresponding to atomic changes because it tells a story. A commit should be small enough to make it easy to check if the change is correct. It should be self contained so that it can be moved arround, cherry picked, etc. This is why the local commit history should be considered as a draft of the story, and the one published should be the official one aimed to be easily readable, verifiable and manipulable.