> At the risk of sounding judgemental, I think this preference for always squashing PRs comes from a place of either not understanding atomic commits, not caring about the benefits of them, or just choosing to be lazy. In any case, the loss of history inevitably comes at a cost of making reverting and cherry-picking changes more difficult later, as well as losing the context of why a change was made.
1) Why are you ever reverting/cherry-picking at a more granular level than an entire PR anyway? The PR is the thing that gets signed-off on, and the thing that goes through the CI build/tests, so why wouldn't that be the thing kept as an atomic unit?
2) I don't think I've ever cared about the context for a specific commit within a PR once the PR has been merged. What kind of information do you expect to get out of it?
Edit: How does it remove the context for a change or make `git bisect` useless? How big are your PRs that you can't get enough context from finding the PR commit to know why a particular change was made?
1) Why are you ever reverting/cherry-picking at a more granular level than an entire PR anyway? The PR is the thing that gets signed-off on, and the thing that goes through the CI build/tests, so why wouldn't that be the thing kept as an atomic unit?
2) I don't think I've ever cared about the context for a specific commit within a PR once the PR has been merged. What kind of information do you expect to get out of it?
Edit: How does it remove the context for a change or make `git bisect` useless? How big are your PRs that you can't get enough context from finding the PR commit to know why a particular change was made?