Is it not standard practice to first merge 'master' into 'feature' before you merge 'feature' into 'master'? If 'master' has changes that are not in 'feature' then 'feature' is out of date, testing probably needs to be redone. It also means any merge conflicts are resolved in the 'feature' branch. If 'feature' is a long lived branch then is should merge 'master' on every release anyway.
If your weakest git user cannot revert easily then you're in trouble. Enjoy being on call 24/7 otherwise. Reverting is more important than committing.
I genuinely don't understand why people care about git history so much. I've never needed to look at it in 8 years of using git.
Git history plays a critical role in code forensics, particularly in large code bases (or places where you may have a large number of potential authors). I. E. 10 commits just went to production from 3 different teams on one service. Something breaks a few hours later; was it one of the 10? Was it a corner case in something much older? Or was it someone's feature flag going live?
If you deal with a service that has been matiained for a few years, this is also an excellent way to figure out what was done why and when. Or figure out if a well meaning rebase accidentally clobbered a critical piece of ancient logic. Or determine who the heck owns something when you realize it's time to split up a larger service.
The list goes on. Note git history plays directly into git blame too; it can be an excellent tool in the right circumstances.
For stuff like "this line doesn't make sense next to this other line. Why was it added?" Sometimes a line was deleted between them, sometimes it was a bad merge, sometimes the rest of the commit tells you "oh, it was added to make the Foobar work."
I have allocated some of the valuable left-hand-only keyboard shortcuts in my IDE to searching Git history. It tells you the "why" when the "what" doesn't make sense, and the "who" when git blame shows some reformatter.
If your weakest git user cannot revert easily then you're in trouble. Enjoy being on call 24/7 otherwise. Reverting is more important than committing.
I genuinely don't understand why people care about git history so much. I've never needed to look at it in 8 years of using git.