We had the same discussion in my office.
If I am developing a feature (in a separate branch) - why shouldn't I rebase to make a single commit out of this feature ?
Is this really interesting for you that it took me 10 commits to do sO ?
Even if one of the commits was just a "I have to switch an fix a bug and want to commit before switching to another branch" - commit ?
I think there is nothing wrong with rebasing and to merge commits before pusing them.
I don't think it's wrong when using git. However I think it shouldn't be designed like this though. Git rebase should add metadata not remove them. Essentially you rebase because you want to hide certain details because they are not important. Rebase could do one or more actual merges instead and mark certain commits not important so they wouldn't show up in logs by default.
AFAIK rebase is the only operation that happily destroys your history without any --force or --hard option. It always disturbed me.
There is a legitimate usage of rebase though: you really want something removed from history. Like you accidentally committed a secret, inappropriate message or you just want to fix a typo in the last commit.
The way I understand it, I should only rebase (for squashing, not in the case of a spilled secret or inappropriate message) if I haven't pushed it to a shared remote branch. Is that correct?
Is this really interesting for you that it took me 10 commits to do sO ? Even if one of the commits was just a "I have to switch an fix a bug and want to commit before switching to another branch" - commit ?
I think there is nothing wrong with rebasing and to merge commits before pusing them.