I love squash merge. I’ve seen it being enforced in many places I’ve worked at. You’d think losing commit history due to squash is a bad thing, but it’s actual

I love squash merge. I’ve seen it being enforced in many places I’ve worked at. You’d think losing commit history due to squash is a bad thing, but it’s actually a good thing in a large team. When you have 100s of merged into master you want to see one atomic commit per PR. If something is wrong, then you can revert that individual commit. It’s also much better signal:noise ratio. Most individual commits in PRs are like “fix”, “ugh! lint” and things like that. The PR title has much better names. GitHub squash merge adds title and link to pull request with the number. So if you want to see finer version of squash commit, you can always do that. However squash merges tell you one big then in the main/master branch “who did what when”. Git bisects to find when a regression was introduced work work well. The whole idea is a merged PR is a piece of work ready to be deployable. Individual PR commits are not.