> My biggest problem with git rebase -i is that it has to be interactive The way I see it, it's a feature rather than a problem. For once, the name (interactiv

> My biggest problem with git rebase -i is that it has to be interactive The way I see it, it's a feature rather than a problem. For once, the name (interactive) agrees with its purpose. Interactive rebases are meant to be manual editors for git history - sort of like how commits are meant to be manual operations. Automatic commits miss the purpose of all the flexibility built into the tool. > Having to go through a whole interactive rebase because I forgot to link to a bug number in one of the commits is rather annoying. I don't get this. Rebases are cheap if you do it frequently. My rebases typically consists of maximum 2 ops at a time. It's not much more complicated that commits themselves. > It's also a little annoying that i can't do an autosquash without an interactive revase. I have never personally seen a use for autosquashes. Others may have the same experience and may be why there is no autosquash. However, it wouldn't be too hard to include if there is a good demand.