Both need to be known by someone but I still think this is a useful insight. The implementation details are key if you have to troubleshoot and want to know you

Both need to be known by someone but I still think this is a useful insight. The implementation details are key if you have to troubleshoot and want to know your tools at a deep level. It's also useful for anyone trying to implement their own version of a product with the same objective from scratch. You want to know the history of how something has been implemented by other attempts. That is a key priniciple of engineering in general. But ultimately, the implementation should involve choices and the possibility of change. git commit is saying the current state of the staged tree should be recoverable by any future user of this same repo. There are many possible ways to achieve this goal and how git happens to currently do it is worth knowing for some people. It's certainly been fascinating to read the months of output Julia Evans has put into this git plumbing exploration series. But I don't think it's critical for every single user of git to understand at this level of detail exactly how git works, and in principle, the developers of git should be able to change this without changing the semantics of what it means to commit in any user-facing way.