> Optimizing for a pretty looking git history is probably the most foolish thing to focus on
It's not about "pretty"; commits are a form of _communication_. Do we send emails without editing before hitting send? It's a means to optimize for easier reviews through better comprehension of the changes, which also leads to faster reviews. Our colleagues don't want to read a bunch of intermediate commits.
> If you are doing anything that involves rewriting the history you are doing it wrong.
It's not about "pretty"; commits are a form of _communication_. Do we send emails without editing before hitting send? It's a means to optimize for easier reviews through better comprehension of the changes, which also leads to faster reviews. Our colleagues don't want to read a bunch of intermediate commits.
> If you are doing anything that involves rewriting the history you are doing it wrong.
Care to elaborate? What's your general strategy?