[EnPissant]

What's the difference between this and squash merging PRs? A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference.

[Dylan16807]

> A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference.

They made it pretty clear they're talking about not-large commits. And they're contrasting that with any-size PRs.

[EnPissant]

That's a false dichotomy, lurker. A PR or a commit can be large or small.

[Dylan16807]

It's not a false dichotomy. They're just using different terms than you would, based on their experience with how the people around them use those systems.

[EnPissant]

It's comparing carefully manicured git history hacking to unregulated PRs. It's pure dogma.

[Dylan16807]

You agree that they are making a real comparison between two different things.

But you also say it's pure dogma?

I'm confused.

[EnPissant]

>I loathe GitHub PRs because of this. Working at $dayjob the unit of change is the commit, and every commit is reviewed and signed off by at least 1 peer.

Because this is exactly what a squash merged PR is. There is no meaningful difference unless you say "but commits are done by good people and PRs are done by bad people".

[Thorrez]

I think it's the review process. Do you review 1 commit or multiple?