31–40 of 308 posts
Rejoice, finally a new feature that isn't AI related.
I get your point, but it kind of is AI related. The size of PRs since AI has made it much harder to review a diff. Stacking the PRs seems like a response to this problem.
I feel like many people (and industry in general) complicate things unnecessary. Stacked pull requests break large changes into small, reviewable pull requests. That's how pull requests are supposed to be, no? If yours aren't that - you ought to rewrite them. With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click. Why would I want to do that instead merging…
Here's a common flow where I find stacked PRs are useful: - I want to build feature X - Ah, but it would work better if I refactored the module first - I refactor then build feature X - There's then some additional (and optional) cleanup work As a reviewer I wouldn't want to see all this in a single PR, and the changes depend on each other so I can't open multiple independent PRs. Manual rebasing is fine but navigati…
I feel like many people (and industry in general) complicate things unnecessary. Stacked pull requests break large changes into small, reviewable pull requests. That's how pull requests are supposed to be, no? If yours aren't that - you ought to rewrite them. With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click. Why would I want to do that instead merging…
Here's a common flow where I find stacked PRs are useful: - I want to build feature X - Ah, but it would work better if I refactored the module first - I refactor then build feature X - There's then some additional (and optional) cleanup work As a reviewer I wouldn't want to see all this in a single PR, and the changes depend on each other so I can't open multiple independent PRs. Manual rebasing is fine but navigati…
and the changes depend on each other so I can't open multiple independent PRs
What's the benefit of this type of stacked PRs over a well-curated set of commits, and reviewing per commit? I think the bigger problem is that big AI PR's need a different way of reviewing. For example, the order in which the diff's are shown can make a big difference in how easy the commits are to read (e.g., function definition change first, then all call sites, then the tests). Or maybe we should go to a system w…
What's the benefit of this type of stacked PRs over a well-curated set of commits, and reviewing per commit? I think the bigger problem is that big AI PR's need a different way of reviewing. For example, the order in which the diff's are shown can make a big difference in how easy the commits are to read (e.g., function definition change first, then all call sites, then the tests). Or maybe we should go to a system w…
I feel like many people (and industry in general) complicate things unnecessary. Stacked pull requests break large changes into small, reviewable pull requests. That's how pull requests are supposed to be, no? If yours aren't that - you ought to rewrite them. With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click. Why would I want to do that instead merging…
Here's a common flow where I find stacked PRs are useful: - I want to build feature X - Ah, but it would work better if I refactored the module first - I refactor then build feature X - There's then some additional (and optional) cleanup work As a reviewer I wouldn't want to see all this in a single PR, and the changes depend on each other so I can't open multiple independent PRs. Manual rebasing is fine but navigati…
The commits in a PR are already a stack of patches, and so PRs are already "stacked" as they are.
If feature X depends on the refactoring (cannot be rebased on the un-refactored upstream), it's part of the change; you can't just merge the feature and not the refactoring.
If the two are separable that way then, sure, it makes sense to ask for them to be separate PRs.
Really excited to try this. After using Graphite it's been very hard going back to stack-less GitHub. Hopefully this can make the stacked PR workflow more common and give people an easier alternative to mammoth PRs.
I'd recommend git-spice, it's very easy to use and powerful, and of course open-source. I've tried graphite but found that they made it too convoluted for what it is.
I feel like many people (and industry in general) complicate things unnecessary. Stacked pull requests break large changes into small, reviewable pull requests. That's how pull requests are supposed to be, no? If yours aren't that - you ought to rewrite them. With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click. Why would I want to do that instead merging…
> With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click.
Consider:
"With pull requests, you can independently review and check each commit inside the pull request, and then merge the entire pull request in one click."
Pull requests are stacked commits. This does not have to recurse; you don't need stacked pull requests, not to mention stacked pull request stacks.
A commit can already contain changes to multiple files. In many cases, even a complex change can be just one commit. A sequence of multiple commits handles all the remaining cases.
Stacked PRs sound like a use case for someone who never wants a PR to be a container for multiple commits, such that if a unit of work is best done as three commits, they want them in separate PRs. Oh, but now they are not related together, the way a stack of commits is related under one PR, so we need a meta-PR to contain PRs or something.
This could be a consequence of commits being sort of second class citizens in the GitHub UI compared to PRs. If you want a commit to be treated as PR, on the same level, you must create a PR with nothing but that commit. So then, what would have been a single PR with four commits that you could merge with one click is now four PRs. Which you want to be able to merge them with one click.
What's the benefit of this type of stacked PRs over a well-curated set of commits, and reviewing per commit? I think the bigger problem is that big AI PR's need a different way of reviewing. For example, the order in which the diff's are shown can make a big difference in how easy the commits are to read (e.g., function definition change first, then all call sites, then the tests). Or maybe we should go to a system w…
> What's the benefit of this type of stacked PRs over a well-curated set of commits, and reviewing per commit? For the people who work with stacked diffs (in phab/otherwise) this is exactly what they'd consider reviewing a well-curated set of commits one-by-one. One distinction is that cognitively a unit of review (a PR, a diff) remains a single bound change. Comments are focused on that change and the PR does not gr…
> . By focusing the stack to the different reviewers you can avoid ambiguity about "what a person is signing off on" in the stack.
That can be easily done with comments. If the PR are orthogonal, they could have been split. And if they're not, I would really like to know how the part that I'm reviewing interacts with the rest of the changes.