Git was never intended to capture and preserve the order of git commit commands, and you’re making incorrect assumptions that it was a goal. Maybe the git devs

Git was never intended to capture and preserve the order of git commit commands, and you’re making incorrect assumptions that it was a goal. Maybe the git devs knew there is no useful information and no benefit to being so strict about something so arbitrary, or maybe because forcing people to keep their commits in stone in whatever the first arbitrary way they were added is a big disincentive to making commits at random points in time, which somewhat undermines the point of having a version control system at all. BTW rebase produces a new commit ordering, but does not modify the old one. > You’re claiming that there were specific points of time with specific states that never actually existed. No. You are asserting intent on the part of git users and git that has never existed, you have misunderstood what git history is. The git history is not a claim that the state at that point existed during development, you are projecting your own goals that are not shared by git or git users. > You're losing information about points of time and specific states that actually existed, which someone once considered important enough to do a git commit over. Hehe this is so full of assumption. You write it like I’m rebasing someone else’s work, but you already know I’m only rebasing my own commits, and I’m the one who decides what’s important enough to do a commit over. I like commit early, commit often. I want to make small incremental commits that don’t display to others that way and I expect to put small commits and fix ups together later into a single useful commit with only one commit message.