I come from an SVN background so I'm not sure what the typical git workflow looks like. When you merge in SVN, you provide a commit message describing the merge. This is necessary because SVN's merge-tracking has historically been poor.
I noticed that git's default behavior is to automatically commit the results of the merge if it is successful. This means that the log normally won't show merges, so everything in the history looks like it was developed in one branch. Is this preferable to showing merges as additional commits? I can think of several reasons why and why not, but I'd like some input from other users.