[ahepp]

I don't have experience with the stacked PR workflow and often find myself asking the same questions you are.

As far as I can tell, the biggest benefit of stacked PRs over just making a coherent series of commits, is that it might make it easier to start work on your second PR before you merge the first one?

With human-in-the-loop coding, that sounds like it could lead to a lot of wasted work if the first PR gets substantial feedback. But with agentic coding, I can imagine how it might be desirable to keep the agent chugging while the first PR is under review.

Interested in learning more about it and generally agree that AI is stressing the current review paradigms a lot of us are accustomed to.

[332451b]

For me it's hard to imagine not starting on the second PR after submitting the first one, regardless of AI or stacked PRs. For focused work I find it important to avoid context switching, stay in the zone and keep everything in my head. Wasted work in comparison feels less significant to me.

If review is fast I'd be switching back and forth between tasks throughout the day. If review is slow I might end up implementing a feature over the course of two weeks rather than two days. With reviewers in different time zones, limited time or doing their own focused work, it adds a lot of latency going back and forth for every PR rather than iterating on a stack of PRs.

Personally I find the biggest benefit is that it lets both the author and reviewers work at the pace that works for them, with reduced context switching and latency.

[ghthor]

If you make good commits and each of them is a valuable unit of work; having tooling that can manage rebasing them and creating a reviewable PR for each is super valuable for maintaining momentum and making reviews easier.