This obsession with "clean" history seems to me nothing short of insanity. Source control has one job: to record the history of code in order to be aid in figur

This obsession with "clean" history seems to me nothing short of insanity. Source control has one job: to record the history of code in order to be aid in figuring out what happened when things go wrong. If everything always went well, we'd just have great merge tools and throw away the history. I can understand a desire to filter out stages of a project by different levels of review (I just ran the build and tests passed so I committed vs a bunch of people reviewed it so I merged), but that people solve that by deleting or rewriting history to be something different from what actually happened is just nuts. Is it just that git makes it easier to change history than to add metadata for filtering? Why have we not seen presentation tools to solve this problem rather than what seems like a ubiquitous readiness to alter and throw away the messy but accurate facts about what happened?