Comment by teiferer

> I didn't get why stick with the requirement that review is a single commit

Yeah that is pretty weird. If 5 people review my code, do they all mangle the same review commit? We don't do that with code either, feels like it's defeating the point.

Review would need to be commits on top of the reviewed commit. If there are 5 reviews of the same commit, then they all branch out from that commit. And to address them, there is another commit which also lives besides them. Each commit change process becomes a branch with stacked commits beinf branches chained on top of one another. Each of the commits in those chained branches then has comment commits attached. Those comment commits could even form chains if a discussion is happening. Then when everybody is happy, each branch gets squashed into a single commit and those then get rebased on the main branch.

You likely want to make new commits for that though to preserve the discussions for a while. And that's the crux: That data lives outside the main branch, but needs to live somewhere.