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.

Stop telling me what to do. You are not my real dad.

If PRs arent being reviewed for hours or days thats a management problem. No amount of unit tests are a replacement for another set of eyes.

Pull requests were designed for open source contributions from untrusted strangers. Applying them to trusted teams is a category error.

wrong
didn't bother reading further

Yeah if you saw the quality of my coworkers' code you would not be saying this.

I hate having to harass people to review my PRs too but getting rid of them entirely seems insane to me. Most of the issues with pull requests can be sourced more to the size of changes rather than their existence. If you can keep your PRs small enough that someone can review it in 5-10min then things get a lot easier for everyone but deleting the step entirely means nobody is watching what's being submitted

Like, you might have someone working on something in a new codebase but misunderstanding the architecture or just going in the wrong direction in general and a review is the best way to correct course before getting too far in

disagree, pr's catch tonnes of shit, knowledge transfer is useful even in trusted teams. they also don't prevent any test driven development or continuous integration.

team focused development pairing are also pulling studies from 2005 before pr's were meaningfully a thing.j Also as someone who's done a significant amount of pairing, it's not that easy. I can't imagine mob programming.

For anyone else who might get clickbaited by the headline: this is not meant for open source, they’re only talking about small corporate teams

I did most of this a long time ago when the team was 2-4 programmers. Moved to PRs when we started bringing on interns. No way the business owners would've allowed pair programming. Pair programming may be better and more productive, but the decision makers are often more ideological than rational.

not a professional programmer, by any means - but PR's (for me) slow development down to a point where code matches the philosophical/algorithmical goal. when code development is at the proper pace, it dramatically reduces the need for refactoring.

edit: upvoing this post, because the comments are particularly interesting - as with any "good" post :-)