> Do people out there actually squash commits? Yes, squashing parts of a discrete piece of work together, where it makes sense, then makes it trivial to git b

> Do people out there actually squash commits? Yes, squashing parts of a discrete piece of work together, where it makes sense, then makes it trivial to git bisect any future problems. Code committed to the mainline should always compile, and should be made of discrete changes. However, do what you like on your unpublished local branch. > What's even the point of it? It's not like people routinely read the commit history, and when they do, they really would like a complete story, not 20 gargantuan commits that contain 3 years of development. My company routinely reads the commit history. The commit is usually the 'why', and the code is the 'how'.