To be fair, Git itself is a bit of a pain, and GitHub's main achievement is/was to make it somewhat bearable.
Everything is fully and completely explained, in terms which mean nothing.
(They ain't perfect, of course.)
"In astronomy, declination (abbreviated dec; symbol δ) is one of the two angles that locate a point on the celestial sphere in the equatorial coordinate system, the other being hour angle. The declination angle is measured north (positive) or south (negative) of the celestial equator, along the hour circle passing through the point in question."
Anyone who doesn't know what declination is, know from reading the introductory paragraph of this scientific Wikipedia article?
Anyone? no? :-)
I rest my case, m'lud.
Why should this be a metric one would want Wikipedia to meet? It's an encyclopedia, not an astronomy course.
Of course, the brilliance of Wikipedia is that if you think you can write a clearer intro, you can do so! You could even add it to the simple language version of the page - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination
On a celestial sphere (planet, star, etc) the declination angle (being 0 is at the equator, being 90 degrees is the north pole of the sphere, being -90 degrees, is at the south pole).
You also need another angle known as the "hour angle" to locate a point on the sphere. It doesn't explain what that is, but as can be seen on Wikipedia, you can easily click on that word to go to the entire page that explains what it is.
What don't you understand?
Once again, not so difficult to figure out even if you have no experience in the specific technical field of a Wikipedia article. So I have no idea what /u/casenmgreen's problem is.
If you push rewritten history to master, you're a git.
Conclusion: learn your tools.
The thing is, we could have done better (and have been) since before git even existed.
It's not my favourite process, but...
Squashed commits are strictly worse than plain, non-fast-forwarded merges from rebased branches.
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.
But GH's PR process is broken anyways. I miss Gerritt.
Also, git store the files in a smarter way so file size won't explode like zip versioning.
Or previous versions. Plural. Yes.
Well, that's one half of git. The other half is tooling to work with the snapshots and their history, eg to perform merges.