> history should be exactly what you actually did, not some clean and idealised version of what you wish you had done. This is a false premise. There is a prod

> history should be exactly what you actually did, not some clean and idealised version of what you wish you had done. This is a false premise. There is a product (and its various versions), and the team that develops it. Both have a claim to a meaningful definition of "history". What you are arguing is that the 'history of developer' is more fundamental than a less noisy 'history of the product development'. Does it really matter (and need we record it for posterity) if developer x used n commits to post n incremental changes to a well defined software unit of the product? It seems a comprise position of (1) no history rewrites before code review, followed by (2) post code review cleansing squash before merge would satisfy all concerns and history records have also served their purpose. . A developer's timeline is relevant to her team lead, not the product manager.