To be fair, most of the its difficulty is realized when you're stuck with a teammate rewriting history. Who, much like anyone anyone doing the same, hasn't bothered reading a book explaining things.
Not a single soul besides the one rewriting history knows what they're in for after the fact.
It's a recipe for disaster.
Unless you mean squashing commits, which I don't consider rewriting history, just a retelling of the fact. Still, it's something one can only do very sporadically, or at known periods of time. I
'm sure others would be more pedantic about it and this wasn't clear above.
Hardly anything modern about it, but it's a way of keeping a somewhat sane history. Certainly better than merging 'fix' 'fix' 'fix comments' into master.
The thing is, we could have done better (and have been) since before git even existed.
There are legit reasons to have a series of commits within one PR, and rebase and merge them as is, and use amend/fixup and force pushes to maintain them cleanly.
