Re: Branches are Scary

[Random832]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> So I think the too detailed history is not important for these
> branches, since they eventually are going to be deleted.  Therefore,
> my advice is just not to squash there.

If they get merged, the branch may be deleted but the history
stays forever, as part of the history graph of the branch it is
merged into.  I suppose you could squash (and rebase, so the
parent branch can be fast-forwarded) before merging, so that the
merge reflects the squashed history rather than the real history
that existed on the branch (and then never push the squashed
version to the feature branch).  Is that what you meant?

Seems... fiddly, to me.