It's a good practice. Worth mentioning also: the same can be done with ordinary git log, assuming everyone is using git well. A proper git log of yesterday's work can be like your work newspaper with coffee.

▲

laybak 4 hours ago | parent [-]

this seems like a chain of good practices. though I find it hard to stay disciplined about keeping commits well scoped and well described

▲

morganherlocker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You can setup most PR systems to squash on merge using the first commit's message, then enforce that the top commit message is prefixed with a ticket ID. This practice has many benefits: readable git log, easier git bisect for tracking down regressions, it becomes easy to find all commits associated with a block of work, more useful git blame.

▲

jonahx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Becoming very comfortable with "rebase --interactive" and other cmds for editing your (local!) history before merging helps a lot. Once you are, it only adds 5m or so of extra work to most PRs. And while acquiring this knowledge used to be difficult, LLMs make it very easy these days.

	▲	duskdozer 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would also recommend an editor designed for rebases. I use the nodejs rebase-editor TUI (though it looks like the old non-vibecoded releases have been removed from github, so unclear on the current availability of this one) which makes it easier to organize