Reorient GitHub Pull Requests Around Changesets
I've had the experience of using GitHub as a maintainer for very large open source projects (1000+ contributors), as an engineer for very large closed source corporate projects, and everything smaller. Through those experiences up to today, GitHub pull requests is where I spend almost all of my time while on GitHub, and to me its also unfortunately the most frustrating part of GitHub.
There are a lot of improvements I would love to see with pull requests, but a massive chunk of my problems would be solved through one major feature: changesets. This blog post describes this suggestion and what I would love to see.
Disclaimer: My ideas here are not original! I do not claim to have come up with these ideas. My suggestions here are based on well-explored Git workflows and also are partially or in full implemented by other products such as Gerrit, Phabricator, or plain ol' email-based patch review.
The Problem Today
The lifecycle of a GitHub pull request today is effectively one giant mutable changeset. This is a mess!
Here is a typical PR today: A contributor pushes a set of commits to a branch, opens a PR, and the PR now represents that branch. People discuss the PR through comments. When the contributor pushes new changes, they show up directly on the same PR, updating it immediately. Reviewers can leave comments and the contributor can push changes at the same time, and it all updates the same PR.
This has many problems:
A reviewer can leave a review for a previous state the PR was in and it can become immediately outdated because while the review was happening the contributor pushed changes.
Worse, a review can become partially outdated and the other feedback may not make sense in the context of the changes a contributor pushed. For example, a line comment may say "same feedback as the previous comment" but the previous comment is now gone/hidden because the contributor pushed a change that moved those lines.1
Reviews don't contain any metadata about the commit they were attached to, only a timestamp they were submitted. A user can roughly correlate timestamp to commit but it isn't totally accurate because if a commit comes in during a review, the timestamp will seem to imply it was after the most recent commit but your review may have been against the prior commit. 😕
Work-in-progress commits towards addressing review feedback become visible as soon as the branch is pushed. This forces contributors to address all feedback in a single commit, or for reviewers to deal with partially-addressed feedback.
You can't easily scrub to prior states of the PR. If you want to review a set of earlier commits while ignoring later commits, you either have to manually build a "compare" view or use a local checkout (I do the latter). But through either approach you only get the code changes, you don't also get the point-in-time reviewer feedback!
Similar to the above, if a contributor pushes multiple new commits, you can't easily compare the new set of commits to the old. You can only really scrub one commit at a time. For this, you again have to fallback to local
gitto build up a diff manually.
And more... I talk about some more later, but I think I've made my point.
I'm sure I'm wrong about some detail about some of the points above. Someone is likely to say "he could've just done this to solve problem 5(a)". That's helpful! But, the point I'm trying to make is that if you step back the fundamentals causing these problems are the real issue. Namely, a single mutable changeset tracking a branch on a per-commit basis.
The solution is changesets: A pull request is versionable through a monotonic number (v1, v2, ...). These versions are often called "changesets."
Each changeset points to the state of a branch at a fixed time. These versions are immutable: when new commits are pushed, they become part of a new changeset. If the contributor force pushes the branch, that also becomes part of a new changeset. The previous changeset is saved forever.
A new changeset can be published immediately (per commit) or it can be deferred until the contributor decides to propose a new version for review. The latter allows a contributor to make multiple commits to address prior feedback and only publish those changes when they feel ready.
In the world of changesets, feedback is attached to a changeset. If a reviewer begins reviewing a changeset and a new changeset is published, that's okay because the review as an atomic unit is attached to the prior changeset.
In future changesets, it is often useful to denote that a file or line has unresolved comments in prior changesets. This ensures that feedback on earlier changesets is not lost and must be addressed before any changeset is accepted.
Typically, each changeset is represented by a different Git ref. For example,
GitHub pull requests today are usually
refs/pr/1234 and you can use
locally to check out any pull request this way. A changeset would be something
refs/pr/1234/v2 (hypothetical) so you can also check out individual
Instead of "approving" a PR and merging, reviewers approve a changeset. This means that the contributor can also post multiple changesets with differing approaches to a problem in a single PR and the maintainer can potentially choose a non-latest changeset as the set of changes they want to merge.
Changesets are a well-established pattern across many open source projects and companies. They're already a well-explored user experience problem in existing products like Gerrit and Phabricator. I also believe changesets can be introduced in a non-breaking way (since current PRs are like single-mutable-changeset mode).
Changesets would make pull requests so much more scalable for larger projects and organizations. Besides the scalability, they make the review process cleaner and safer for both parties involved in pull requests.
Of course, I can only speak for myself and my experience, but this single major feature would dramatically improve my quality of life and capabilities while using GitHub2.
This is a minor, inconvenient issue, but this issue scales up to serious problem. ↩
"Just don't use GitHub!" I've heard this feedback before. There are many other reasons I use GitHub today, so this is not a viable option for me personally right now. If you can get away with not using GitHub, then yes you can find changeset support in other products. ↩