What you are saying is true if created manually. It is a chore to create sensible commits messages when you are committing often.

But LLMs appear to be pretty good at making small commits with sensible commit messages, that greatly help to make sense of the whole PR.

Regarding large monolithic commits, how do you even know where to start reviewing in a large PR? Smaller commits at least give you some sense of ordering.

▲

skydhash 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> Regarding large monolithic commits, how do you even know where to start reviewing in a large PR?

What I’m saying is that large commits shouldn’t be a thing without out of band discussions (formatting, design refactoring, features merging). With such knowledge, it’s easy to glance at the code and understand the implementation.

▲

soon_to_be_sb 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>without out of band discussions..

Not every project can afford this.

>With such knowledge, it’s easy to glance at the code and understand the implementation.

I really doubt that this is true for large, legacy code bases, where one is only familiar with a small part of the system.

	▲	skydhash an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Not every project can afford this. You expect to send a big PR to someone without him being aware of the context or without being available to discuss your solution? > I really doubt that this is true for large, legacy code bases, where one is only familiar with a small part of the system. Reviewers should already be knowledgeable about the part being modified. If no, the review is just for checking for antipatterns in the code, or badly written tests. A bit useful, but can be unnecessary in high trust (or keen on accountability) workplaces.