The PSF withdrew their application for the grant from the US government after being presented with terms that included "do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws", which conflicts with their mission statement: "The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers."
> Can someone explain why anyone would want non-squashed PRs?
>
> For the 5% of engineers that diligently split each PR into nice semantic changes, I suppose that's nice. But the vast majority of engineers don't do this.
I think cause and effect are the other way around here. You write and keep work-in-progress commits without caring about changes because the history will be discarded and the team will only look at pull requests as a single unit, and write tidy distinct commits because the history will be kept and individual commits will be reviewed.
I've done both, and getting everyone to do commits properly is much nicer, though GitHub and similar tools don't really support or encourage it. If you work with repository history a lot (for example, you have important repositories that aren't frequently committed to, or maintain many different versions of the project) it's invaluable. Most projects don't really care about the history—only the latest changes—and work with pull-requests, which is why they tend to use the squashed pull request approach.
It doesn't mean anything useful in this context. It's a leftover from when PyPI was called "the cheeseshop", which in turn was a reference to a Monty Python sketch.
[1]: https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2025/10/NSF-funding-statement.h...