Rewriting history by squashing history in one new git repo with "initial commit" was bureaucratically acceptable I assume.
Since working in a big company this is something I've been thinking about a lot. How a lot of traceability and quality enforcement often leads to lower traceability and lower quality.
Quality enforcement at large often results in so much friction for changes that the company can't make necessary changes anymore and just piles on technical debt until it becomes unmaintainable. An example is the recertification process for airplane pilots that directly lead to "low friction" workaround like MCAS. After many iterations of this, modern 737s are now a pile of technical debt. The max was only the straw that broke the camel's back.
With traceability like in your case you have the same. The "low friction" version is to throw away potentially pertinent historical information, because it wouldn't accurately reflect history.
I don't have a solution for this, but it's been bothering me for a while.
Since working in a big company this is something I've been thinking about a lot. How a lot of traceability and quality enforcement often leads to lower traceability and lower quality.
Quality enforcement at large often results in so much friction for changes that the company can't make necessary changes anymore and just piles on technical debt until it becomes unmaintainable. An example is the recertification process for airplane pilots that directly lead to "low friction" workaround like MCAS. After many iterations of this, modern 737s are now a pile of technical debt. The max was only the straw that broke the camel's back.
With traceability like in your case you have the same. The "low friction" version is to throw away potentially pertinent historical information, because it wouldn't accurately reflect history.
I don't have a solution for this, but it's been bothering me for a while.