me too. the only reason i can see is laziness when looking at history because merges clutter it, but even then the fix should be in some front-end tool and not git itself.
as a real world example bitbucket added a cool feature recently where they grey out merge commits.
personally i love rich and complete history, including merge commits - any practice that damages that is something i'll be highly reticent about adopting.
irl i generally don't need to time travel to achieve my goals...
"as a real world example bitbucket added a cool feature recently where they grey out merge commits"
Interesting. I went a different route by making it very easy for users to dissect a merge commit. For example, if you click on the "Find included commits" link in the first commit at:
as a real world example bitbucket added a cool feature recently where they grey out merge commits.
personally i love rich and complete history, including merge commits - any practice that damages that is something i'll be highly reticent about adopting.
irl i generally don't need to time travel to achieve my goals...