# Downsides of using squash merging

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/downsides-of-using-squash-merging/68317>\
**Category:** Tooling\
**Tags:** github, gitlab\
**Created:** [September 17, 2021, 7:49am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/downsides-of-using-squash-merging/68317 "2021-09-17T07:49:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)\
**Post date:** [September 17, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/downsides-of-using-squash-merging/68317/10 "2021-09-17T18:21:05Z")

</div>

> [@stevengj](#):
>
> merging without squashing is fine in that regard.

I did some googling, and apparently this is not true. ☹ In fact, `git bisect` _does_ apparently search feature branches, not just merge commits.

To have it ignore commits “internal” to feature branches, you apparently need to jump through some additional hoops: [https://blog.quantic.edu/2015/02/03/git-bisect-debugging-with-feature-branches/](https://blog.quantic.edu/2015/02/03/git-bisect-debugging-with-feature-branches/) and [How do you get git bisect to ignore merged branches? - Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5638211/how-do-you-get-git-bisect-to-ignore-merged-branches) … though recently this apparently became easier with `git bisect --first-parent`

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/downsides-of-using-squash-merging/68317)._