No. If the intent behind the source code you're actually looking at is not apparent, then realistically, looking at it's history is probably equally useless.
If there aren't tests or specifications to cover the code, I generally assume any bugs are because of a lack of understanding and proceed from there.
Scrolling backwards through history and looking at progressively more naive or prototypical implementations isn't going to tell me anything except the code was likely underspecified IME.
Comments are infrequent, but when I write them, they're usually to try to clarify particularly complex implementation detail. Not to communicate requirements. Comments aren't the ideal place for that IMO.
If there aren't tests or specifications to cover the code, I generally assume any bugs are because of a lack of understanding and proceed from there.
Scrolling backwards through history and looking at progressively more naive or prototypical implementations isn't going to tell me anything except the code was likely underspecified IME.
Comments are infrequent, but when I write them, they're usually to try to clarify particularly complex implementation detail. Not to communicate requirements. Comments aren't the ideal place for that IMO.