we're in the minority I think. I always find it easier to just debug a problem from first principles instead of assuming that it worked at some point and then someone broke it. often times that assumption is wrong, and often times the search for bad commit is more lengthy and less informative than doing the normal experimental process. I certainly admit that there are ases where the test is easily reproducible and bisect just spits out the answer, but that a seductive win. I certainly wouldn't start by reading the commit log and rewinding history until I at least had a general idea of the source of the problem, and it wasn't immediately obvious what to try next to get more information.
if you look at it as in investment in understanding the code base more than just closing the ticket as soon as possible, then the 'lets see what really going on here' approach makes more sense.
> I certainly wouldn't start by reading the commit log
Me neither, for what is worth. But even if the idea is "when in order to figure out this issue, you have to go to the history", a linear history and a linear log never helped me either. For example, to find where a certain change happened to try to understand what was the intent, what I need is the commit and its neighbors, which works just as well with linear vs branching history because the neighbors are going to still be nearby up and down, not found via visual search.
if you look at it as in investment in understanding the code base more than just closing the ticket as soon as possible, then the 'lets see what really going on here' approach makes more sense.