[lubutu]

> So the idea is really "what's the point of having a history full of broken state?".

I rebase commits so they don't break the build but the history remains clean and incremental. Selective fixups and so on isn't the same as squashing everything into a single commit.

> This would be a hint that your PR was too big and addressing more than one thing.

I don't think so. Sure, that can be true, but squashes can also simply lose vital history. Suppose you remove a file and then replace it with code copied and modified from another file. If you then squash that, all Git will say is you made a massive edit to the file.

[palata]

> I rebase commits so they don't break the build but the history remains clean and incremental.

Sure, and that's fine. The idea of the squash workflow is that they don't expect that. It's just different, and that's the rationale behind it :-).

> all Git will say is you made a massive edit to the file.

Which IMO is exactly what happened in this case xD. But again... whatever floats your boat, I was just talking from the point of view of a squash workflow.