Unless you have a “every commit must build” rule, why would you review commits independently? The entire PR is the change set - what’s problematic about reviewing it as such?

▲

riffraff 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There's a certain set of changes which are just easier to review as stacked independent commits.

Like, you can do a change that introduced a new API and one that updates all usages.

It's just easier to review those independently.

Or, you may have workflows where you have different versions of schemas and you always keep the old ones. Then you can do two commits (copy X to X+1; update X+1) where the change is obvious, rather than seeing a single diff which is just a huge new file.

I'm sure there's more cases. It's not super common but it is convenient.

▲

steveklabnik 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In stacked diffs system, each commit is expected to land cleanly, yes.

▲

verst 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But isn't that why you would squash before merging your PR? If you define a rule that PRs must be squashed you would still have the per commit build.

	▲	steveklabnik 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Squash merge is an artifact of PRs encouraging you to add commits instead of amending them, due to GitHub not being able to show you proper interdiffs, and making comments disappear when you change a diff at that line. In that context, when you add fixup commits, sure, squashing makes sense, but the stacked diffs approach encourages you to create commits that look like you want them to look like directly, instead of requiring you to roll them up at the end.