My org has started to strongly recommend squashing before merging (in my opinion one step less extreme than the forced squash-merge mentioned in the article). I

My org has started to strongly recommend squashing before merging (in my opinion one step less extreme than the forced squash-merge mentioned in the article). I tend to consider this a decent principle in general but rules are made to be broken. My main concern is if anyone ever commits based off of a pre-squashed branch. They won't be able to simply merge upstream after their parent has been squashed, they will now have to cherry-pick or incur strange redundant merge conflicts as they no longer share history. For a small team whose features tend to be short-lived before going upstream this won't likely be a problem but believe me, if you ever need long-lived feature branches on a larger team, squashing them can cause more trouble than your nice history will gain.