> And even the "long version" is pretty negligible (like, maybe 10 seconds per branch?)
I notice that mainly the differences in opinion with regards to workflow is disagreement about "how long is too long" for various operations :)
10 seconds would certainly be too long for me. It is obviously not too long for them, or they'd learn some keyboard shortcuts to get the easy 5 out of the way to begin with. But regardless, it's all pretty much dwarfed by things that need actual brainpower like re-reading my commit messages for grammatical errors / broken links / etc.
(I’m not familiar with Phabricator, only Gerrit and GH/GL, as well as some more manual Workflows.)
As far as I know, Phabricator does not let you view or comment on individual commits in a code review (which I use at work). Let me know if you know differently and I might switch to doing that.
Can you advise me on running CI on each commit in the PR in GitHub? As far as I can see, it's technically possible in that you can run arbitrary code as part of your CI, but there's no convenient way to do it. (In particular, I would want to be able to view the CI runs for each individual commit, i.e. render the little checkmark/x next to each commit in GitHub, which seems like it would require a lot of integration via the API.)
One thing that often happens in a stack is the earlier commits are regularly merged into the main branch while the later commits await review. This helps to keep things in sync in a trunk-based development workflow. Is there a way to split out and merge only the earliest (reviewed and accepted) commits, and leave the later commits pending review, in a tool like GitHub?
Overall, I would like to be able to use GitHub PRs for big stacks, but there seems to be a lot of friction in doing so, to the point where it's more convenient to adopt an alternate code review tool (like Graphite) or PR management tool.
Isn't there a "commits" tab when viewing a revision? Also Phabricator is no longer maintained for the last year.
> Can you advise me on running CI on each commit in the PR in GitHub? As far as I can see, it's technically possible in that you can run arbitrary code as part of your CI, but there's no convenient way to do it. (In particular, I would want to be able to view the CI runs for each individual commit, i.e. render the little checkmark/x next to each commit in GitHub, which seems like it would require a lot of integration via the API.)
You'd use the https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses API to publish the little checkmark. More info: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-....
However, before you do that, consider: this one I think is a slight impedance mismatch between how users conceptually think about using GH and how GH actions are designed to be triggered. The most simple thing to do if you want every commit checked and tested is just make a GH action that runs your checks on push, which gets run on every commit and updates the status. If you already have a push action, just remove the "main" branch restriction. The PR action is designed to do PR-scoped things. You can, if you really only want to check commits once they are opened for PR, iterate over the commit list and manually trigger workflows to test and check each one (you can even just manually trigger your existing push action if you add the manual trigger option and specify the commit sha yourself and it will run, I think). But, is the list of commits that get pushed to the repo and the list of commits you want to eventually test for inclusion into main really that different, at the end of the day?
More often than not I've seen such limits used to "reign in" "misbehaving" engineers or because, as I've suggested, people sometimes don't know how to use a tool to its full capacity. Sometimes it's purely people wanting to force their preference on others. I've had to walk senior engineers through (or just manually clean up when they clearly have no idea how git works) branches that people royally mess up because they merged something in 8 different ways because some other person told them rewriting history is evil or some previous organization taught them to only push merge commits to PRs or protected all branches or something...
There can both be organizations that need to enforce policy to make their business successful and people that don't really understand the full gamut of what's possible with a tool and restrict workflows to stuff they understand. I don't think I equivocated the two. I simply expressed frustration from all the times I've anecdotally encountered people to aren't fluent with git making decisions for others who are fluent with git on how git should be applied.
But at the very least there's still an existing remote branch, which is the ultimate merge target, for example - perhaps even multiple. Since we're talking about coordination, there's also the actual state at the remote vs. my view of the remote vs. my teammates' views of the remote. But we don't think about this too much, because we can synchronize easily as long as the remote branch has a name. Taking the name off the branch makes it more difficult to do anything with someone else's work other than merge it, e.g. pass a changeset back and forth or hand over a half-complete task.
> why do we also use the command `git stash`, instead of just always creating a new branch for our temporary work?
I have no idea actually, because I don't. I haven't run git stash manually since I learned about autostash, and even before that it wasn't for temporary work but for changes I decided I wanted somewhere else only after writing them. Temporary work mostly does get a branch (usually as a new commit on top of my current local branch).
> If I'm understanding correctly, every time you rebase the longest branch, for each commit in the branch, you would manually run e.g. `git push <commit> origin:my-branch-name`?
Close, except I'd scroll down the list of commits and type `P o RET TAB branch-name` (or something to that effect, it'd be slightly different if I have several remotes). This would take perhaps ~0.5 seconds per branch and not require me to context switch to a terminal.
It does take longer for people using less powerful clients, but virtually all do provide some way to do it even it means a few right-clicks on a menu and clicking some "OK" buttons, and there's value in everyone using analogous operations. And the people using those clients usually can't reliably recover from a large class of "git broke" mistakes, assistance from git-branchless or not, so handing them a CLI and a prayer is out of the question. And even the "long version" is pretty negligible (like, maybe 10 seconds per branch?) compared to everything else you should do to make your changeset approachable for review.