[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".

[Dylan16807]

They make it very clear that they are praising small commits, and squash merge commits are usually not small. Squashing is the opposite of what they want.

The preference they have is not exactly a problem with github PRs, but github PRs are much more likely to review a big pile of code at once.

The amount of code being reviewed at once is a meaningful and extremely objective measure, and that's the thing they're concerned with. Not who made it.