Hacker News Reader

I think it depends on what problems you want git to solve for you.

Some people like having the context from the complete the history of little commits without the risks of rebase breaking something.

Some people like using rebase to group all changes needed for a feature into isolated(ish) commits.

Some people just like the aesthetics of a straight master branch without the clutter of little "corrected typo" or "fixed bug for real this time" commits.

Been using git for 15 years now. Occasionally rebased, usually had an issue ;)

You've never used gerrit then. That tool is entirely designed around rebasing with merges as a rare event.

Nor have I heard of it. (not OP)

There are probably tools built around merging too.

Gitlab and github are built around merge-requests and gerrit around rebasing/amending. I strongly prefer gitlab/github workflows.

You've never lived.

Can't tell if you are joking or not, but if you are not that's a bit too mean. At the end of the day, they are merely tools.

> You've never lived.

I use it all the time.