| ▲ | bikelang 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Reading threads like this and the GitHub stacked PRs just makes me feel like an alien. Am I the only one that thinks that commits are a pointless unit of change? To me - the PR is the product of output I care about. The discussion in the review is infinitely more important than a description of a single change in a whole series of changes. At no point are we going to ship a partial piece of my work - we’re going to ship the result of the PR once accepted. I just squash merge everything now. When I do git archeology - I get a nice link to the PR and I can see the entire set of changes it introduced with the full context. A commit - at best - lets me undo some change while I’m actively developing. But even then it’s often easier to just change the code back and commit that. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | steveklabnik 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
You're not an alien: this is the workflow that GitHub encourages. It's just that not every tool is GitHub. Other systems, like Gerrit, don't use the PR as the unit of change: they use the commit itself. And you do regularly ship individual commits. Instead of squashing at the end, you squash during development. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rs545837 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
You could agree that the PR is the meaningful unit for shipping, but push back gently that for agents working in parallel, the commit/changeset level matters more than it used to because agents don't coordinate the way humans do. Multiple agents touching the same repo need finer-grained units of change than "the whole PR." | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||