Hi, Scott! Thanks for your response. To be clear, I like the work you're doing. I definitely agree that the unit of review shouldn't be one commit at a time or

Hi, Scott! Thanks for your response. To be clear, I like the work you're doing. I definitely agree that the unit of review shouldn't be one commit at a time or every commit all at once, and I'm happy to see you invest in tooling that offers a better path. >I think it's more interesting to build tooling that helps with the core problem rather than try to change people's attitudes. The problem imo is not that people are lazy, but that the review tooling is not good at the problem set of large changes that need to be introduced atomically. I think it's both, but I think mindset shift has to precede tooling in this case. If the team/org culture tolerates people just blindly LGTM'ing large commits, that's a culture problem at its core. Even if they have better tooling, what's motivating people to invest extra work to break up changes into small, logical chunks rather than continuing to just throw huge diffs over the wall if those get LGTM'ed with no pushback?