If it really isn't useful, which I imagine means you committed somewhat haphazardly, ok, of course.
If there might be some usefulness hidden there (for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it), it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository or another branch (better the latter, unless it increases the repository's size too much)
> for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it
True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation.
> it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository
Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive.
> > for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it
>
> True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation.
That's good, and yes, if that repository history really wouldn't add anything it's fine to squash everything
> > it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository
>
> Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive.
If there might be some usefulness hidden there (for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it), it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository or another branch (better the latter, unless it increases the repository's size too much)