3 ms·
> I think it's optimized for discussions before integration, which is largely what PR descriptions and comments are largely used for now. As a GitHub co-founde
by keybored 3y ago
> I think it's optimized for discussions before integration, which is largely what PR descriptions and comments are largely used for now.
As a GitHub co-founder, whose fault is that? I have seen many great PR descriptions on GitHub that never make their way into the final inclusion in the main/master git history.
Meanwhile the git project links every commit to the message id whence the original patch (for many years now—not the whole history). Which will be available as long as the email archives are out there somewhere.
And the commit messages get reviewed into a good shape. Something that I’ve never seen anyone do on GitHub.
- neilkk 3y agoBut Github and similar tools actually solved this problem where Git failed to do so. Nowadays people have a setup with Github or bitbucket where they can navigate from a piece of code right to the pull request, where they can read the code review discussion, see the build log, reach linked resources like the Jira, etc.
- keybored 3y ago“Just go to our web app” is not solving the same problem as what Git is trying to solve (the latter sometimes badly, it might be added).