Hacker News Reader

Both would be nice. I generally restructure commits before pushing them to master in order to make them easier to read, which is nice for others. However, I think about the code in the order I built it, especially when I need to remember why I did something. Unfortunately, that information gets lost if I forget.

On the whole, I think restructuring is good (I haven't always felt this way), but something is lost in the process.

Feature branches, merge commits, and small (possibly broken!) commits are all better documentation of the process of developing a feature than big "cleaned up" commits.

In this case I'd like to be able to revert the merge.