The point of what?

I hope they fixed phabricator in the meantime.

The point is the main branch reflects the "units" of change, not the individual commits to get there.

One merged pr is a unit of change, at the end of the day the steps you took to produce it aren't relevant to others.

My opinion of course, I'm open to understanding why preserving individual commits is beneficial

You can get what you want from `git log --first-parent` without having to toss out information.

See how the Linux kernel handles git history to see a good example of non-linear history and where it helps. They use merge commits, ie commits with more than one ancestor, all the time.

A unit of change is a commit. I have no idea why you'd think a PR is a unit of change.

Does your org approve specific commits or PRs overall?

PRs. This is largely why we don't do stacked PRs: they can just be a chain of commits in one PR

Looking at individual commits is part of the PR review process.