> Rebasing destroys your history, and therefore destroys the point of using a VCS. I don't think this is true. Rebase, as the name suggests, simply rebase the

> Rebasing destroys your history, and therefore destroys the point of using a VCS. I don't think this is true. Rebase, as the name suggests, simply rebase the starting point of your local history. It preserves your history better than that merge commit and having your series of commits intertwined with commits from other people implementing features not related to yours. Rebasing also makes merging even easier, because now merging is done on a commit by commit granularity rather than branches. This also preserves the history better. It's funny that the main rational for most people to use rebase is that it provides better history and this article is arguing that it does the exact opposite without carefully comparing the history in both scenarios. His only argument is that it's not "Real", but what we really care about is "clear" history, not necessarily whose commits come first.