I think the parent's point is that if you only just choose to think of the PR as the "unit of change" on your software product, rather than commits, all of this extra discipline you're imposing on yourself just goes away.
And what do you lose by making this decision?
The main branch, being the only place where the changes really matter, can still capture all of the necessary details of the changes (based on the PR) in the commit message when it's merged. This is the point where the curation is most useful, and where it's easiest to apply and apply standards, run tests, and actually enforce that they're followed.
And what do you lose by making this decision?
The main branch, being the only place where the changes really matter, can still capture all of the necessary details of the changes (based on the PR) in the commit message when it's merged. This is the point where the curation is most useful, and where it's easiest to apply and apply standards, run tests, and actually enforce that they're followed.