Why not all of the above?<p>Our process involves:<p><pre><code> 1. Create work branch off master
2. Just prior to PR creation, rebase against master (check build requires this)
3. Automatic check build passes
4. Human code review passes
5. Squash all work branch commits & merge to master
</code></pre>
Our policy is that we don't give a single shit about intermediate commits that occurred from the perspective of reviewing master commits. This would be a ton of noise because every developer works at a different pace. The work branch commits are sometimes useful lenses at code review time (depending on who's work it is), but never really beyond that point.