What's even the point of using rebase? Merging the development branch into your feature branch periodically is the obvious history preserving thing.
Git already has merge commits, that can be used to label and describe bigger sets of changes in retrospect. There is no need to rewrite the commit history with the benefit of hindsight, it only erases the record of how changes were arrived at, thus losing the opportunity to revisit conclusions from debugging or experiments.
You can also use merge commits to describe sub-units of work in your feature branch. Just rename your branch to some subtask and merge that into your feature branch.
edit: towards the middle of the article, the author also opines
"What motivates people to rebase branches? ...
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s about vanity. Rebasing is a purely aesthetic operation. The apparently clean history appeals to us as developers, but it can’t be justified, from a technical nor functional standpoint."
Git already has merge commits, that can be used to label and describe bigger sets of changes in retrospect. There is no need to rewrite the commit history with the benefit of hindsight, it only erases the record of how changes were arrived at, thus losing the opportunity to revisit conclusions from debugging or experiments.
You can also use merge commits to describe sub-units of work in your feature branch. Just rename your branch to some subtask and merge that into your feature branch.
edit: towards the middle of the article, the author also opines "What motivates people to rebase branches? ... I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s about vanity. Rebasing is a purely aesthetic operation. The apparently clean history appeals to us as developers, but it can’t be justified, from a technical nor functional standpoint."