With all the precautions the author takes, he ends up with a weird take: > If you take away the appeal to trust, though, there isn't much left of the argument.

With all the precautions the author takes, he ends up with a weird take: > If you take away the appeal to trust, though, there isn't much left of the argument. What remains is essentially: Pull requests were invented to solve a particular problem in open-source development. Internal software development is not open source. Pull requests are bad for internal software development. The specific point he tries to reword exists to explain that not everyone needs as much trust than open-source, and, therefore, that not having PR isn't a fatal flaw outside of open-source. The people who use it do so within a discourse along with other points explaining what they gain from forgoing PRs (usually, better continuous integration). I don't buy the whole discourse about not using PRs, but I'm also not sold on the idea of dismantling a coherent discourse into separate talking points and demanding that they should stand separately. I'm also not a fan of rewording someone else's point and slipping a big non-sequitur in that rewording.