alt Hacker News> keeping a dozen commits titled “fix” fixing build / CI errors from the original changes are a lot worse for bisecting than squashing it all into just one.
How so? When I bisect I want to get down to a small diff, landing on a stretch of several commits (because some didn't build) is still better than landing on a big squashed commit that includes all those changes and more. The absolute worst case when you keep the original history is the same as the default case when you squash.
Because they’re broken and their only purpose is to fix up the original change, so it’s functionally the same change.
> The absolute worst case when you keep the original history is the same as the default case when you squash.
No, now you have a bunch of worthless broken commits that you need to evaluate and skip because they’re not the problem you’re looking for.