GitHub Stacked PRs

“all the others (ime) seem to not cleanly rebase on main. They end up with conflicts that require manual fixing”

“Splitting changes into multiple commits is a much worse experience if you actually have self-contained dependent changes.”

“this gives you a UI to manage the PRs of the multiple tickets”

“those who’ve forgotten that they should be splitting changes into multiple logical commits inside a PR”

“Trying to submit a chain of PRs is a horrible experience without support for it.”

“merging only part of the stack into trunk is the mental hurdle I can't clear”

“If so it's a no go for me and my team. Which is too bad because it looks quite useful.”

“IMO not using horrible opaque change IDs is one of the best parts of this.”

“for those of us who do prefer clean rebases, the thing they built is still useful”

“The great part is you can land multiple PRs in one atomic operation”

“Your team did an awesome job - I've been wanting this feature for years and what you guys delivered is exactly what I had in mind.”

“It's good to have this feature, but it is still up to the individual developers to separate the PR work”

“The thing you want to do with a set of commits and reviewing each commit IS stacked PRs.”

“GitHub stacked PRs solve none of my problems. Stacked PRs doesn't take care of the reordering of commits, it doesn't take care of rebasing changes”

“Excited to release this more broadly so anyone can start stacking”

“I find stacked PRs are useful when I want to build feature X after refactoring the module first”

“stacking is such a better ux for separating out a feature diff into distinct component units”

“GH's seems a little better, with their one-button merge that GL lacks”

“Only complaint I had was that `gh stack rebase` was struggling rebasing after squash merges”

“I don't see a way to signal that the PR's must all merge together.”

“Stacked diffs were a godsend and the LLVM community's number one complaint about moving to GitHub losing this feature.”

“Stacked PRs are superior here because they eliminate that extra work of the draft PR and parallelize the review process slightly better.”

“it just takes care of the bookkeeping to associate the series of smaller PRs”

“seems like a good convenience, but I wouldn't want my team to get dependent on an exclusive feature of a single provider”

“this feels to me like just a better UI feature for a good git workflow”

“This is awesome honestly, Stacked PRs are one of those features that feels obvious in hindsight.”

“the stacked diffs approach encourages you to create commits that look like you want them to look like directly”

“It's useful for large PRs in large repos with many contributors. It reduces the burden for reviewers.”

“Amazing. Though this wasn't super obvious from the landing page or docs I read.”

“What is actually useful with natively supported stacks is if you can land the entire stack together and only do 1 CI/actions run.”

“Using a stacked set of PRs you can continue producing new work, which depends on the work you've already completed”

“Every time I try to do it manually, I wind up screwing everthing up.”

“there seems to be a native stack navigation widget on the PR page, which is certainly a welcome addition”

“in the UI if you base a PR on another branch you can just check a box to make it a stack”

“Stacked PRs track changes through updates and can be integrated progressively as they get validated.”

“it seems you need to know the final shape of the stack before you start creating Pull Requests”

“this would have helped us alot grouping commits together and having cleaner commit messages”

“The stacked diffs flow is much closer to the kernel flow for git than the traditional GitHub PR flow is.”

“multiple PRs gives you the tools to manage the commits properly which GitHub is missing”

“If this works as smoothly as it sounds, that'll significantly reduce the overhead!”