TIL git history.
That said, I'm trying to figure out what the target workflow is, specifically for the "autorebases all your branches to match" functionality. Assuming we are not talking about rewriting published history -- and nobody should ever really be doing that anyway, when multiple commiters are using the same branch -- I presume this is a situation where the dev has multiple, unpushed features that are WIP, each in their own local branch and building on each other. The trouble I'm having is the number of commits per feature.
If the number of commits per feature is 1, then that means each branch just has one commit that its dependent branch doesn't have. What is the point of the branch then? Just have a single WIP branch and keep building a linear commit history. If you need to give someone one of the features, then give them the commit which inplemtns that feature and nothing afterwards.
If the number of commits per feature is >1, then this is certainly more difficult to work with, and the appeal of git history starts to shine when dealing with WIP commirs. But why is the dev in this situation, where they're building multiple dependent features but they're none are fully complete yet? Because if they were complete, then I presume the dev should squash the commits so the number of commits per completes feature is 1.
My current thought is that having >1 commits to implement a single feature is a transient condition, and good practice is to get to 1 commit per feature. Is there something I'm missing?