As I was reading your comment I caught myself thinking this was a post defending git but then I saw you username. All of what you mention are what git allows to

As I was reading your comment I caught myself thinking this was a post defending git but then I saw you username. All of what you mention are what git allows to do and also how git is used 99.9% of the time. I can't help but notice your lack of experience with Git, and I say that very respectfully. Most organizations' repositories will have one or more protected branches (e.g. master). What is published there remain. Even mistakes. When the history on those branches are erased it is for very good reasons only. Usually it involves the size of the repository getting too big, illegal / private content and paths only differing by lower and upper case messing with Git on Windows. Even in those very rare cases the history of the vast majority of the files remain. And this is also something all CVS has to face so this is not specific to Git itself. Dev branches are pushed, overwritten and erased. I don't see how that's a problem. In the end having small intelligible commits that reads like a dish recipe accelerates code reviews and corrections and I haven't seen any other VCSes doing that as efficiently as Git.