Basically equivalent to that. This was about a decade ago.
We had 4 teams, each released on a schedule. Each team had a branch. When a team released, it was merged from master, then each team pulled. The person who did the pull would change, and it was often a rebase.
So my team released, some other team rebased badly. There would be no sign of problems for us until after they released. But since 2 teams generally released at once, and people didn't remember who actually did the merge a few weeks earlier, it was hard to figure out who was actually messing up. (I had suspicions, but no proof.)
I've seen rebase used appropriately since. But that disaster left scar tissue.
So (sorry for picking on this scab) there became 4 branches each of which for the team concerned was the next beautiful branch and then say each week a team woukd merge into master and everyone woukd rebase but fuck that up once and now the beautiful branch team B is working on is out of step with the real master ... oh god.
It looks like you’re talking about rewriting history that has already been shared. Pretty much everyone agrees that is a bad idea. It even has a prominent warning in the git book.
What others here, including myself, are advocating is rewriting your own history before you share it, which makes a very different set of trade-offs.
We had 4 teams, each released on a schedule. Each team had a branch. When a team released, it was merged from master, then each team pulled. The person who did the pull would change, and it was often a rebase.
So my team released, some other team rebased badly. There would be no sign of problems for us until after they released. But since 2 teams generally released at once, and people didn't remember who actually did the merge a few weeks earlier, it was hard to figure out who was actually messing up. (I had suspicions, but no proof.)
I've seen rebase used appropriately since. But that disaster left scar tissue.