You're in luck! For you, there is `git diff`.

(And for me as well — both the individual commits and the PR-level summary are useful.)

So, those of us who prefer commit-sized chunking don't have to do anything special to accommodate your preference.

It doesn't go the other way, of course, if you present one big commit to me. But so long as your code is well-commented (heh) and the PR isn't too huge (heh heh) and you don't intersperse file renamings (heh heh heh) or code formatting changes (heh heh heh heh) which make it extremely difficult to see what you changed... no problem!

▲

Izkata 4 days ago | parent [-]

> or code formatting changes (heh heh heh heh) which make it extremely difficult to see what you changed...

One of the "individual commits saved me" cases was when one of these introduced a bug. They tried to cut the number of lines in half by moving conditions around, not intending to make any functional changes, but didn't account for a rare edge case. It was in a company-shared library and we didn't find it until upgrading it on one of our products a year or two after the change.

▲

rectang 4 days ago | parent [-]

One of the reasons I don't like a policy of "every commit must pass CI" is that I prefer to perform verbatim file moves in a dedicated commit (which inevitably breaks CI) with no logical changes at all, then modify code as necessary to accommodate the move in a separate commit. It makes review and debugging much easier.

	▲	hxtk 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is my main use for branches or pull requests. For most of my work, I prefer to merge a single well-crafted commit, and make multiple pull requests if I can break it up. However, every merge request to the trunk has to pass CI, so I'll do things like group a "red/green/refactor" triplet into a single PR. The first one definitely won't pass CI, the second one might pass CI depending on the changes and whether the repository is configured to consider certain code quality issues CI failures (e.g., in my "green" commits, I have a bias for duplicating code instead of making a new abstraction if I need to do the same thing in a subtly different way), and then the third one definitely passes because it addresses both the test cases in the red commit and any code quality issues in the green commit (such as combining the duplicated code together into a new abstraction that suits both use cases).
	▲	dpflan 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are model citizen with those file moves. Totally agree with how that can be very disruptive for legibility and comprehension of changes.