> The PR is nothing more than a request to discuss the changeset. This makes no sense. Why does the subject of a PR have to be a specific version of a specific

> The PR is nothing more than a request to discuss the changeset. This makes no sense. Why does the subject of a PR have to be a specific version of a specific changeset? Why can't the discussion be the subject, with the supplied code changes be considered a supporting "attachment" for the discussion? PRs allow for commentary and discussions. In fact, PRs let you do everything an "issue" let's you do, but not vice versa. You can't "attach" code changes to issues. Not without creating a PR anyway. ---- Let's not forget what GH-style "issues" and "pull requests" were supposed to emulate and replace: email threads. While GH's UI elements are better at most things than emails, they're not better at everything. Emails are a lot more flexible and powerful, even if not as "pretty". PRs? They can't even let me suggest code changes (when reviewing someone's PR) using my IDE/editor. Or even suggest a code change that's not contiguous. Diff-of-diffs is a concept that GH has barely understood, but one that's just obvious with plain emails.