>Why do we use Git at all? Because it is our most important tool for tracking down the source of bugs in our code. Git is our safety net. I disagree with git a

>Why do we use Git at all? Because it is our most important tool for tracking down the source of bugs in our code. Git is our safety net. I disagree with git as a bug tracking tool, it's a distributed code repository. It's closer to google docs than it is to an IDE debugger or a system log. I also disagree with the idea that "tracking down the source of bugs" has anything to do with quality or a "safety net." Can someone please explain to me where this kind of "commit blame" culture comes from? And what the point is? What is the next step that happens after you identify the "offending commit"? I don't understand why you wouldn't just open a new PR to fix the bug and move the fuck on with your life? What business value is there in this type of exercise to specifically identify which git commit "caused a bug"?