> I don't have a problem with the concept of a PR I don't either; the idea of a change-set as the unit of source control works well. My problem is that git doe

> I don't have a problem with the concept of a PR I don't either; the idea of a change-set as the unit of source control works well. My problem is that git doesn't work that way. Every git workflow I've seen, including GitHub PRs, and to a large extent git itself, presents the illusion that a git commit is a change set. When you write a git commit message, you probably write it as if it were describing a set of changes. When you run `git show 21ad6ef3`, git shows you changes, as if `21ad6ef3` referred to those changes. But it doesn't. The GitHub approach is interesting in that it actually does retain the change-set (PR) as part of the project history. But it's out-of-band with respect to the actual git repository.