The problem is getting all the visualization tools on the same page.
Bazaar got this right. Their official UI displays a linear history with the ability to expand any merge commit to show the side branch.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bazaar_Explorer_-_Lo...
But I can see why people might still desire more explicit constructs to handle history organization. The expectation that the commit graph should be both logical and historical causes a sort of cognitive dissonance, which these sorts of conventions don't fully resolve.
They're a commit with two parents, one of which has no real meaning anymore because it doesn't exist anywhere else. They break a lot of tools because of this.
What do you mean? That's the feature branch, what's the issue?
The second parent is the last commit of a series of commits starting at a commit, sometime in the past on the main branch, followed by all the new commits that represent the feature that is being merged.
Merges are horrible, if you don't have a mental model of git that aligns exactly to the above.
l = log --graph --abbrev-commit --date=relative