Valid, but you lose the lived history that comes with the audit log of it being actual review back and forth and CI runs vs lost to a developers machine and only a relic in the commit log. I can see both sides, though.

▲

Zanfa 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can you elaborate about the practical value of having the history of back and forth, in a PR or even in the commit log? In my 20ish years of experience, I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve solved something thanks to having this work-in-progress state persisted in the repo history.

It’s exclusively been the other way around where having a smaller number of larger squished commits (post merge) that’s made the project be more maintainable.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not about having it in the commit history. I've seen a few cases where the back and forth revealed that the AI reviewer was offering bad advice (and a few others where I suspect bad local AI advice is why people keep sending me the same category of mistake).

▲

cush an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

People usually squash merge anyways