dolmen2 hours ago
The repo seems to move from "adevinta" (a well known company in the EU tech) to "runetes". Anyone to tell us the story?
NamlchakKhandro3 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?
verall2 hours 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.
danpalmer38 minutes ago
This is exactly it. When I worked in a ~10 person team I just didn't get it, PRs worked quite well (with some basic discipline, they're not perfect). When I moved to a... much larger company... I don't know how PRs would work here, it would be way too unwieldy. The Gerrit style works fantastically here.
steveklabnik3 hours ago
This is standard practice in the "stacked diffs" world: one review, one commit.
jsphweid3 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_20152 hours 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.
steveklabnik2 hours ago
When you work this way, each commit is expected to be able to land independently.
cobalt2 hours ago
it lets you maintain version history when working, then most workflows auto squash on merge
what3 hours ago
Why would you have more than one commit for a PR? That sounds like crazy town.
chrisweekly2 hours 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)?".
what2 hours 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.
tclancyan hour ago
I’ve worked under both systems, but isn’t the purity you’re describing a bit of a dodge in that you wind up force pushing amended commits when you find you forgot something?
steveklabnikan hour ago
Why is that a dodge? that's the expected way to work in this system, and it should be able to show you the interdiff between those amends.
Kinrany2 hours ago
Is it compatible with jujutsu?
jasonlotito3 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.
Edit: Just to be clear, this is not a blemish on this project. More a lament and a wish someone would create such a thing for those of us forced to leave Gerrit behind for... GitHub. =/
esafak4 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.
dietr1ch4 hours ago
It seems so, https://github.com/runetes/maiao#quick-example
As they say in mtg, reading the card explains the card
martythemaniak4 hours ago
Gerrit. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time