You should only ever do things when they're worth it. Which sounds obvious, but a lot of people argue for "correctness" of things in the abstract without tying back to why that correctness matters, how much its worth, and what the cost of getting it is.

In the case of git, I think

a) a good "published" code history can actually be pretty valuable

b) git's UX is bad

The fact that a tidy history is valuable should be totally independent from the fact that git's UI doesn't make it easy to do that.