My argument is basically this. It is a misuse of git. The author wants to eliminate state, so they suggest using git because as it turns out... you do need sta

My argument is basically this. It is a misuse of git. The author wants to eliminate state, so they suggest using git because as it turns out... you do need state. But the author didn't eliminate state at all, they just eliminated a seperate statefile. If that's what bothered them, then sure, the problem is solved. But now you are using version control as state and those don't always line up. If you only work linearly then it is perfect. But what happens when you need to start tracking a pre-existing resource? You have to import it into git history somehow. Back to your point, you really should not be modifying git history at all. There are tools to do so, but anytime you modify git history it is technically a mis-use of git. There are side-effects of doing so, especially when working on a large distributed team. Basically the author trades one minor problem for many major problems.