Squashing and rebasing don’t fix the shitty commit message problem. Discipline and good teamwork do. All to often in rebase+squash heavy repos I start going th

Squashing and rebasing don’t fix the shitty commit message problem. Discipline and good teamwork do. All to often in rebase+squash heavy repos I start going through the history and find the mega-commit that introduced a change and gain zero insight. In comparison, merge heavy repos have a lot of merge this, or fix this typo commits, that are fairly easy to skip right over when not pertaining to your actual change, but prove invaluable when the problem was introduced by some weird bad conflict resolution including a typo, or countless other problems where just all context is otherwise lost. I think it’s unfair to characterize one group as not using the history, but instead represent differences in how groups use them. As an archaeologist vs daily change log perhaps is a better characterization?