Post

What about "manually rebase onto main, then create a merge commit"? It gives a lovely DNA pattern showing you the start and end of a feature, and all the steps along the way. I just wish GitHub would offer it as a one-click option ("rebase and merge" is not the same, as you don't get the bubble).

Interesting. I haven’t seen that technique in the wild. We use squash merge with the GH ui and if I need to understand the context of that squash commit, then I review the source PR and its discussion & iteration. Not git native, but usually the most useful part of the history is the conversation.

I see – one downside of not being git native though is that none of that context would be carried across if you ever pushed the repo to another remote. Or, more importantly, it becomes impossible to revert one of the individual commits that made up a PR, as all that info would be trapped in GitHub.

squash rebase or i'm leaving

If a PR naturally involves a three-step refactor, would you still squash rebase? Is it your preference just to avoid dealing with PRs that have unclean or high-noise git history?

yea in that case I'd do 3 PRs.

Squash merge all the way