Is it really true you never want to refer to a code review history? It can provide important context missing from even a well-commented commit. Regardless it's

Is it really true you never want to refer to a code review history? It can provide important context missing from even a well-commented commit. Regardless it's possible to have both. An example is hg's changeset evolution. With changeset evolution, each commit has two histories: the repo history and the changeset history. Commands like `blame`, `log`, etc. show only the repo history; a separate set of commands accesses the changeset history. An example where this is useful: sometimes rebasing can inadvertently produce bugs, such as collapsing two identical lines which ought to have been duplicated. `git blame` cannot check if that happened. But the changeset history, by tracking the rebase, can tell you that.