> what's wrong with squash-merges? In theory I don't mind them. In practice I've found that I more often encounter a scenario where I wish a change had been sp

> what's wrong with squash-merges? In theory I don't mind them. In practice I've found that I more often encounter a scenario where I wish a change had been split to smaller commits rather than the scenario where there were too many commits to go through. Anyway... I intended my example as an explicitly anecdotal evidence to counter the seemingly absurd suggestion of using Git without ever using merge. Feels like going back to subversion or CVS.