The time it takes to carefully rebase a branch onto another, and to compress commits for a feature into one, is still much longer than the time it takes for my eyes to pass over so-called "empty" merge commits.
If I want to look at when a feature entered a branch, I can look at its merge commit. And the feature branches are there to show how a feature was built; bugs could be the result of a design decision that happened in one of the midway commits.
I looked at OP's example pic in the blog, and I read all of his words, but I wasn't sold. His picture looks like a normal git history to me. It requires almost no effort to find what I'm looking for.
And that's not even touching his rage against the idea of a canonical release branch (master). But that's for another day.
The time it takes to carefully rebase a branch onto another, and to compress commits for a feature into one, is still much longer than the time it takes for my eyes to pass over so-called "empty" merge commits.
If I want to look at when a feature entered a branch, I can look at its merge commit. And the feature branches are there to show how a feature was built; bugs could be the result of a design decision that happened in one of the midway commits.
I looked at OP's example pic in the blog, and I read all of his words, but I wasn't sold. His picture looks like a normal git history to me. It requires almost no effort to find what I'm looking for.
And that's not even touching his rage against the idea of a canonical release branch (master). But that's for another day.