Modern Git workflow is very simple on its own:
1. Your codebase has a `main` branch which is write-protected
2. Devs submit changes to `main` from their own branches using PRs
3. Devs can do whatever the fuck they want on their own branch
4. PRs are merged one at a time
5. When merge happens a dev's PR is squashed into one commit that gets appended to `main`
6. If next dev wants to merge their PR with a conflicting change they have to resolve the conflict first and then they merge
7. The end result is that `main` is a linear history of all PRs with the time they were committed to the `main` branch i.e., when they could've started to break prod.
This is a solved problem and it works great in industry. Why break it? If you want interactive rebase then make 2 PRs.
1. Your codebase has a `main` branch which is write-protected
2. Devs submit changes to `main` from their own branches using PRs
3. Devs can do whatever the fuck they want on their own branch
4. PRs are merged one at a time
5. When merge happens a dev's PR is squashed into one commit that gets appended to `main`
6. If next dev wants to merge their PR with a conflicting change they have to resolve the conflict first and then they merge
7. The end result is that `main` is a linear history of all PRs with the time they were committed to the `main` branch i.e., when they could've started to break prod.
This is a solved problem and it works great in industry. Why break it? If you want interactive rebase then make 2 PRs.