[3np]

What I find confusing with people raving about it as something different is the considering the following scenario:

    refactor/a  # should be merged as independent PR
    feature/a-b # depends on a; should be merged independently, after
    fix/c       # independent

Then I will probably have some local `dev` branch checked out with a combination of all of the above and maybe some.

How else than "stacked diffs" would you submit all of this for review concurrently while still working on all of them? It sounds like a new word for what we were always expected to do? What's an alternative which doesn't rely on compromising merge-strategy?

At this point I'm suspecting "stacked diffs" is just a crotch for people still barely coping with DVCS but I could be missing something.

[viraptor]

GH did not really support automated base change (after merging) not that long ago, so doing this as stacked diffs/prs there was quite annoying. I guess that's why people tried to avoid it for a long time? I know I did some weird PRs in the past just to keep them independent. It could still be improved today (why is main the base when the branch contains an existing PR? adjust it automatically, please!), but it's not a big issue anymore.

[stouset]

Also this workflow is excruciatingly painful if you need to make a change or add a commit to an earlier part of the “stack”. Now you have to manually rebase everything after it one by one by one.

[ykonstant]

A crutch, I think. Or a crotch; I don't judge.