I would rather not have my 20-60 work commits, possibly shifting solution design twice or three times, in the main project history, spanning days and sometimes weeks, invalidating earlier commits, and a hassle if not impossible to reasonably and efficiently document changes between them. And all those changes intertwined with my other work and my colleagues' changes.

The key insight from Charity Majors is that speed and safety are not trade-offs -- speed IS safety. “Ship a single changeset by a single dev at a time, making it easy to isolate the owner of any problem, preventing the blast radius from expanding, and making it easy to fix while the intended effects of the code are fresh in their mind.”

I really don't get how "develop in feature-flagged trunk" is supposed to come together with "single dev single changeset". Work evolves. Design evolves. Surely, multiple/many "single changesets" must come together to form new features and changes? This claim seems to assume issues are found before it's being changed again, and in a timely manner, even when it is behind a feature flag?

Were pull requests really "created for FOSS"? I feel like, maybe assume, pre-merge reviews have been a thing before that [and unrelated to PRs].

I feel like the article could have been structured a lot better, and made its point without a "it's like this" "but maybe not" digression. Feels like inflammatory bait into relativation. I guess I'll refrain from raising my other points and disagreements that I noted because by the end of the article, it wasn't really claiming it broadly anymore anyway.

Outside of the irritation, I found the arguments interesting. I'll keep it in mind, but I don't see my team implementing it like that or to a higher degree. For various reasons.

Despite the negative vote sum, I think it's an interesting alternative perspective. Even if I found it irritating to read, and even if people hate it, it's a good discussion in the comments. About how we work.