> It absolutely does. Maybe the author is confusing git with one of the bit-based services like github? That was the most confusing paragraph. It says that “pu

> It absolutely does. Maybe the author is confusing git with one of the bit-based services like github? That was the most confusing paragraph. It says that “pull request” merges aren’t part of Git or something. Of course the merge itself is part of Git. I certainly would have heard something by now if people were getting different merge results when using GitHub compared to git(1). Also > Most of that distributed history gets thrown away when I do a squash. Step (1) use squash; step (2) complain that squash throws the history away.