I've used it several times to understand why things are done the way they are.
The discussion leading to this design is encoded in the revisions of the patch series, browsable on patchworks.
I agree to your point that the git history has to be taken care of to be useful.
"What did John do on Tuesday morning" is not a good reason to keep history. Neither is "This change was made as part of a sprawling "fix" commit that happened on Thursday afternoon".
The important point is if you are going to keep history at all it needs to be kept in a state that is actually useful, meaning useful for the first two things, not the last two. Otherwise it's just a waste of disk space. The git history is meticulously maintained which is what makes it actually useful.
- Thread: This helps you make a useful Git history
- Counter-point: Why are you using a version control system to make a useful history? Why does the history matter? I have been developing software for eighty years and neither I nor anyone I’ve met have cared.
And one key to good git history is people splitting up big PRs in multiple commits.