> Blames are easy. There's zero need to try to keep your tree "looking nice". I don't care about how the tree looks like. But I do care about keeping the numbe

> Blames are easy. There's zero need to try to keep your tree "looking nice". I don't care about how the tree looks like. But I do care about keeping the number of commits low _because_ it makes blames easier. > In the future when I'm hunting down a problem I almost never care about what feature or fix this was a part of - e.g. the PR - I care entirely about the context of the developers mind when he committed that specific line of code. I've mostly made the opposite experience. Many developers don't have the knowledge or confidence to use "amend" etc. consciously, so it leads to a mass of useless "fix error", "forgot something", "add tests" and "implement PR reviews" commits. This makes blame more difficult. I also agree: sometimes a squashed commit message doesn't help me understand the code of line I'm blaming. But not having squashed the commit mostly wouldn't help me anyway. Instead, I try to avoid this problem beforehand, by making sure that the PR itself contains all the information (via PR description and/or code comments). Recently I've reviewed a "Fix scrollbar" PR. The "what" is clear. The "why" (= "it's broken") _sounds_ sufficient, but I was missing information like "how exactly is it broken" and "why does this change fix it". That's the kind of stuff I might blame in a year from now, and now it's part of the Git history.