The repo seems to move from "adevinta" (a well known company in the EU tech) to "runetes". Anyone to tell us the story?
Kinrany 3 minutes ago [-]
Is it compatible with jujutsu?
NamlchakKhandro 1 hours ago [-]
Who is creating a separate PR for each commit on their feature/fix branch?
sounds like crazy town.
I just dont understand why someone would operate like this.
Lets assume you're squash merging your feature branchs to your local main, then you're raising the them as prs.
why would you do this?
verall 41 minutes ago [-]
On large teams I think the "cherry pick" workflow (Gerrit style) beats the "pull request" workflow (GitHub/gitlab style). On smaller teams it's the other way around. I think it's somewhere around 10-20 people actively committing that the cherry pick workflow comes out ahead.
steveklabnik 1 hours ago [-]
This is standard practice in the "stacked diffs" world: one review, one commit.
what 1 hours ago [-]
Why would you have more than one commit for a PR? That sounds like crazy town.
chrisweekly 28 minutes ago [-]
IMHO equating commits and PRs puts undue pressure on the scope and quality of a given commit, adding potential for unnecessary stress and eliminating the benefits of an additional buffer / layer for aggregation of changes. A PR representing a sizable feature or refactor might naturally contain a dozen commits, each dedicated to a logical
area or a requisite subset of the whole. Assuming on principle a goal of keeping main in a known-good state, such intermediate and incomplete changes (fine in an unstable feature branch) would wreak havoc.
It's equivalent to asking, "Why would you have more than one story in an epic (or task in a story)?".
what 16 minutes ago [-]
If your PR has more than one commit, each one should be deployable in isolation. Which means you can split your giant PR into smaller ones that can be reviewed independently.
jsphweid 1 hours ago [-]
1 commit == 1 reviewable unit == 1 PR == 1 CL == 1 feature == 1 fix is a perfectly reasonable way of working.
I used to work at companies where no one squashed their commits and the entire git logs were filled with 80% non-sense like "temp" or "bad" or "working" with the other 20% being coherent changes. What's the point of doing this I ask?
datsci_est_2015 16 minutes ago [-]
Well are we talking about commits pre- or post-merge? I don’t care how many commits you put into the PR / MR as long as they squash down to a single commit upon merge.
cobalt 40 minutes ago [-]
it lets you maintain version history when working, then most workflows auto squash on merge
jasonlotito 1 hours ago [-]
As someone who much prefers Gerrit's UI/UX over GitHub's UI, I was disappointed that this wasn't replicating the UI for GH reviews.
esafak 2 hours ago [-]
Does it use Github's new stacked PR feature?
Edit: apparently stacked PRs on GH are older than I thought; the readme references a 2024 blog post about it.
sounds like crazy town.
I just dont understand why someone would operate like this.
Lets assume you're squash merging your feature branchs to your local main, then you're raising the them as prs.
why would you do this?
It's equivalent to asking, "Why would you have more than one story in an epic (or task in a story)?".
I used to work at companies where no one squashed their commits and the entire git logs were filled with 80% non-sense like "temp" or "bad" or "working" with the other 20% being coherent changes. What's the point of doing this I ask?
Edit: apparently stacked PRs on GH are older than I thought; the readme references a 2024 blog post about it.
As they say in mtg, reading the card explains the card