> that history should be exactly what you actually did
That gives you the history of exactly what git commits you made, not exactly what you did and how you went about solving the problem though, right? git describes changes to the source.
It seems like you're getting the worst of both worlds, trying to understand how the source changed is much harder when you have peoples' experiments and draft changes and false starts littering the history. And understanding the approach to problem solving and why decisions were made is pretty unsatisfying by digging through that stuff too really. That seems better kept as documentation and/or in the commit logs.
That gives you the history of exactly what git commits you made, not exactly what you did and how you went about solving the problem though, right? git describes changes to the source.
It seems like you're getting the worst of both worlds, trying to understand how the source changed is much harder when you have peoples' experiments and draft changes and false starts littering the history. And understanding the approach to problem solving and why decisions were made is pretty unsatisfying by digging through that stuff too really. That seems better kept as documentation and/or in the commit logs.