Comment by mchristen
5 hours ago
Those could just be individual commits on a branch. Why does it need to be a stacked PR? That concept really only exists within the interfaces of these kinds of tools.
5 hours ago
Those could just be individual commits on a branch. Why does it need to be a stacked PR? That concept really only exists within the interfaces of these kinds of tools.
They don't. But reviewing individual commits in the GitHub UI is hard.
A set of stacked PRs is exactly the same as a line of commits. The only difference is the UI, but the UI is the important bit here because lack of UI is what's stopping folk from doing that today.
Even when I've developed my changes as a stack of commits, I'll feed them to my team one commit (and one PR) at a time so they're easier to review — and I discovered that GitHub had turned on stacked commits UI because for one particular project I'd manually created a set of PRs in advance (with the right bases) and GitHub offered to create a stack out of them.
> They don't. But reviewing individual commits in the GitHub UI is hard.
So instead of solving that problem, GitHub developed tooling around a workaround for that problem (targeting a PR at another branch that also has a PR).
Expanding reviews to allow per-commit reviews avoids the need for managing additional branches and all the headache that comes with it.
The sad fact of life is that too many developers are used to pushing PRs with unprincipled commits, and relying on squash merges.
The approach that GitHub chose can show those people almost immediate benefits, which is surely the better path towards adoption than trying to reeducate everyone to adopt a development flow based on clean rebases.
And for those of us who do prefer clean rebases, the thing they built is still useful.
A bunch of details aside, the major conceptual thing that the email based flow has which is still missing in GitHub's data model is the ability to have a discussion on the stack as a whole.
Indeed. But lots of people have never even heard of Gerrit :P.
And the implementation feels very much like it sits in the UI layer, rather than further down the stack.
I'm not trying to claim stacking PRs in this way is the best way (it's not). But it does add an extra affordance for those who want it without burdening those who don't with the need to understand why someone would prefer it.
And there are also plenty of ways that people have been working around GitHub's (and to a lesser extent, git's) lack of tooling for working on changes in this way. I'm sure they have customers clamouring for the feature; whether they'll be happy with what they get remains to be seen.
(Very happy jujutsu user here, my tooling makes it really easy to create stacked commits with a stable identifier that maps really easily to branches and then onwards to running `gh stack`, but what GitHub have delivered is definitely still lacking)
They could but they don't belong together. A PR should be about one thing. Refactoring one module for another's sake should be done in another PR. If not for reviewing, for revertability, and future debuggability.