Phillip Wood [off-list ref] writes:

The reason we're introducing the history command is to experiment with 
providing a better user interface for rewriting history without being 
bound by the limitations of "git rebase". So I think it would entirely 
appropriate to try a different format for the squash message here. If it 
turns out to be a success then we can see if we want to use it in "git 
rebase" as well.

Do we know concretely things that are bad in the current way "rebase
-i" works, so that we can experiment deviation from?  If not, the
above is going backwards, I'm afraind.

Thanks