[dwattttt]

If you tag every commit, sure. You don't know which commit has a bug that needs to be fixed in advance. And at the point you're tagging every commit, you're fighting git.

EDIT: reconsidering: you would have to move a tag when you make changes. A tag is just giving a name to a commit, not a stable identifier that follows a change. A branch is a more appropriate analogy.

A git-native workflow for this would be to have a sequence of branches you continue to update, where 'main' is those branches merged at all times.

[anal_reactor]

When you fix bugs, you don't edit history, you treat these as new features.

[dwattttt]

Correct. The comparable git workflow when you fix a bug is that the work goes on the branch of the feature the bug was in, and "main" is updated to use the new head of that branch.