Wow, my jaw is on the floor. This is such a good idea! I already had the idea of tracking issues in the same repo as the code -- not that I actually use that idea -- but I didn't have the idea of doing PRs in the repo itself. Love it!

tracking issues in the repo would work well. for example, have a dir like ./issues/fix-this-weird-bug.md , and once fixed rename it to ./changelog/fix-this-weird-bug.md . if you adhere to some rules for the metadata, you can use this to base your per-release changelog off of it (some tools already do similar)

I was going to say... interactive rebase addresses a lot of the "diff soup" comments that the writer complains about. It's really only done by disciplined engineering teams though (who bother to learn some more advanced features of git)

I realized reading the first part of this article that I often want to set up a sequence of PR's, for very similar reasons as in the begininng of OP. Say, a prefatory refactor, then the main work, then some data cleanup.

When I do this, the problem with rebase is that it kind of breaks the additional "next in sequence" PRs "on top", or at least requires (confusing to me) cleanup in all of them when I rebase the base.

Have you come across `git rebase --update-refs`? This automatically moves your "intermediate" branches during a rebase and sounds like it could be useful in your situation.

I have not! I'll try to check it out, thanks!

The git cli still scares me when I get off the familiar path. :(

There's also `git rebase --onto`, which effectively does the reverse - you tell git you've already rebased the part of this branch that overlapped with the "intermediate" branch, and it just needs to take care of the rest.

Oh that sounds exactly what I need to simplify the workflow I described for the multi-PR use case. I'm going to try that out today, I just happen to have a use case for it ready to go :)

Wow, I knew of neither of these, thank you!

I'll have to take some time to experiment with both and make sure I understand howt hey work and any pitfalls!

I am definitely in the crowd that thinks git UX is pretty unintuitive and challenging, despite having used it for over a decade!

These sound like great plumbing for a github-style web UI that actually facilitates multi-step sequence PR's though...

> a sequence of PR's, for very similar reasons as in the begininng of OP. Say, a prefatory refactor, then the main work, then some data cleanup.

I would dislike this as a reviewer. Now I need to keep your stack of changes in my head, in order.

Just make the change and push it, if people can’t review the diff you have different problems.

> Now I need to keep your stack of changes in my head, in order.

Agreed. In another comment in this thread, I said the problem with this was "And been frustrated that Github's interface does not make it very easy to make the sequence apparent or have good DX for the reviewers."

For this to work, we need better tooling support -- the reviewer having to keep track in their head is not good.

I'm not sure which of the realistic alternatives you are suggesting:

1. I could submit them all as one PR. But I _know_ it's too big to review well, I needed several steps to get there. Yes, this is the "different problem", but it's normal to sometimes need to take several reviewable steps to get to the outcome, right? The OP had a very common pattern for me: Refactor with no behavior change to set the stage and make the feature easily implementable; feature implementation; data migration.

2. I could submit the PR's one at a time, and not submit subsequent ones until the first are reviewed. But now I need to keep it all in my head, which my head isn't up to, and I not infrequentkly wind up messing up my branches. AND, sticking with that common case, the reviewer doesn't see what motivated the refactor, so I have to just explain it in words, and their like "Oh but I don't like this aspect of the refactor" and I have to be like "Yeah, okay, but if you could see how I used it to implmeent the feature you'd understand why"

Of course I end up doing one of these three paths (with the sequence of PR's made all at once being one of them) when this situation arises, having no other options. They are all unsatisfactory, agreed.

Gerrit supports this workflow. Patchsets can form a "relation chain."

One common workflow is you have a change of, say, 3-4 patches. You get code reviewed on them all, updating each patch set according to the reviews. Later patch sets can't be submitted until the earlier ones are. You can have tooling telling people not to review the later patch sets in the chain until the earlier ones have passed code review.

Interactive rebase is fine, I used it probably 50x a day for many years. The problem isn't really with Git here, it's more a bunch of interrelated problems with GitHub's UX, and the fact that many people culturally have never approached the problem in any other way. A lot of places basically just outright copy GitHub's UX, which I think is a good example of this.

For example, using 'git absorb' or autosquash doesn't solve the problem of the review UX just doing badly when you say "What is the difference between the last version of commit Y, and the new version." If those changes include a rebase, it shows you the entire diff including the rebase. That's often not good, but sometimes extremely necessary. (See my other posts in the thread about how Gerrit does this better.) And if you have to do something like rebase, then solve a conflict as a result of the rebase, it is basically unavoidable that you have to do all of them at once if you want the CI to stay clean (which I find important, at least.)

Also, a lot of teams just culturally hate shit like autosquash, or any squash/rebasing at all. Do I think they're misinformed? Yes. Do I think they could use tools that make those flows 1000x better and faster? Yes. But at the end of the day default user interface and design philosophy of one of the most popular software forges in the world does actually matter and have downstream cultural impact. So you have to interrogate that and break it down for people. GitHub does not really encourage, explain, or smooth out workflows like this. People learn it, then hate anything else. (I mean, fucking hell, Git rebase didn't even have --update-refs, a huge QOL improvement for stacked diffs, until like 2022!) So, you often don't have a choice. I've had many places where engineers despised GH force pushes, but only because... GitHub's UX is bad at tracking addressed/reviewed comments on a PR after a force push! They get hung by their own noose, so to speak, and don't even know it.

I do have other problems with Git, but this post is mostly about GitHub/Gitlab style PR review flows. The same problems still happen even with autosquash or tools that accomplish the same thing.

Oh, I don't know, I hardly consider myself super disciplined. It's just a matter of memorizing a command or two.

    git commit --fixup=commit HASH
    git rebase -i HASH^ #yes, include ^
    # save and close the rebase window that appears
    git push origin branch --force

edit, and you can re-word a commit with

    git commit --fixup=amend:HASH

I think the "hard part" for people is keeping commits focused on just one change. Commits should be crafted to help reviewers, but what I see mostly is a bunch of random commits that look more like a backup of each days progress.

Or just use a good tool, like Magit.

Yes, fixup commits are a good way to approach this, though I don't personally like them, though. I think Sapling's "absorb" command which works on an underlying SCCS weave to automatically absorb changes into the relevant diff is much more elegant. It prompts you with an interactive UI. (For me, it sorta falls into the same space as rebasing a series that has multiple branches on it. You need --update-refs for that. Because otherwise it's like, why am I, the human, doing the work of tracking the graph relationships and manually punching in the commits, and moving the branches, and doing all this bullshit? Computers are good at graphs! Let them handle it!)

There is also a `git absorb`, but it isn't as robust as Sapling's implementation[1].

Really the problem isn't interactive rebase or not. It's mostly a problem of the UX of the review tool itself more than anything, and the kind of "cycle" it promotes. I mentioned it elsewhere here, but fixup commits for example still won't solve the problem of GitHub showing you diffs between baselines, for example, which can absolutely ruin a review if the baseline is large (e.g. you rebased on top of 10 new commits.)

I do have problems with Git's UX beyond this, but the original post is mostly a gripe about GitHub.

[1] There is an example in this GitHub issue that captures the difference between the two underlying algorithms: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/170

I really want to give Sapling a try one day, yeah.

Note that the workflow I described is indeed mostly a workaround for people, like me, stuck with GitHub.

Biggest problem working with Git is remembering all these flags and commands.

If you do it everyday for years, sure you remember most of them.

But for weekend hackers or those who specialise in some other areas, it creates a lot of frustration.

I often forget all these flags etc....

My brother made this https://github.com/zerocorebeta/Option-K

This enables me to simply write in thermal, "interactive rebase main, auto squash.

And then I hit option+k and it replaces it with the above command.

If you are a weekend warrior you are not working with a team. Just commit and push.

You’ve only mentioned your bros GitHub projects four times in the last two days. Time to step it up maybe?

You can add to your ~/.gitconfig

   [rebase]
        autosquash = true

from then on `git rebase -i origin/main` automatically reorder fixup and squash commits. It's a small thing but greatly improved my workflow

Squashing is nice because it keeps the amount of commits minimal, but as mentioned in the article, it has the problem that now reviewers have to figure out what changed since their last review, which can get hard to do if the tree of changes originally proposed needed updates in dependencies of the commits they reviewed.

I really like the idea that I'm working on a tree (often a stack/list) of changes, and as the review progress I get this cross product of iterations over time like [a-better-way-interdiff-review-aka-git-range-diff](https://gist.github.com/thoughtpolice/9c45287550a56b2047c631...) showcases. In the end, the time dimension is useless after things get submitted, so the repository only gets the latest state of the change tree committed, which is simple and like the auto-squashed version you mention, but during review reviewers get to see the change tree evolve in an easy way.

> the problem that now reviewers have to figure out what changed

That's something that the review tool can solve, and I agree that github doesn't handle it well. But other code review tools can show diffs between revisions independently of how the commits have been rebased or squashed over time.

That's part of the problem, if you are a reviewer you'll see the changes that other reviewers asked for on code that you did not want to review.

I guess this might be a problem mostly on large projects on monorepos, where different systems that interact end in the same codebase, but there's a cost to be paid too if each system has their own repo, build/test/deploy infra and independent ownership.

Thanks, but I do every now and then also want to rebase without applying the fixup commits yet. Just using shell autocomplete gives me the flexibility to do that with little effort. (And honestly since it already autocompletes if I type `git re`, this nor Git aliases wouldn't even really save me anything anyway.)

Git aliases are magical BTW