> IMO the pursuit of, or even a concept of 'clean history' is a fallacy and waste of time. It is a level of obsession which I think is just not worth it. While

> IMO the pursuit of, or even a concept of 'clean history' is a fallacy and waste of time. It is a level of obsession which I think is just not worth it. While I do obsess over a git clean history (at least in my personal projects), I still mostly agree. Doing rebase instead of merge to have a cleaner history (as in git log) might not be worth it (git log --no-merges will return a similar image). But there's one feature I use constantly that relies on not having any useless commits on it: git blame. Whenever I'm asking myself why a changes was made (at least weekly), I'm looking for the commit that introduced the change. Things like "fix typo" or "add missing files" don't help. Hence, I am doing a lot of amends and interactive rebases to combine changes that belong to each other. It may take 2 more minutes, but it will make my (and my collegues') life easier in the future.