IMO, there&#x27;s one big feature missing from git (and other SCMs in my limited knowledge of the field) that results in posts like this every so often.<p>There really needs to be some concept of a commit group, one or more commits (probably the diff in commits from one branch to another) that are packaged together so that they can be addressed as one object instead of trying to keep track of a whole bunch of commit hashes.  Merging a commit group is revertible and trivially cherry picked across branches.  This addresses one of the weirdest behaviors in git: the rebase squash.  We want commits to be understandable and usable, but that probably assumes the committer either held off committing or rewrote history to make it seem like things were written correctly the first time.  It seems to me like the whole purpose of an scm is to keep track of history, whether it&#x27;s the neatified, readable feature&#x2F;branch merges or an individual git user&#x27;s frantic, probably unorganized development progress.