Am I the only one who doesn't like atomic commits (or stacked PRs like graphite)? When I work on large PRs I often rewrite and move things around so much that trying to keep all commits in sync is a nightmare.
I do try to split the work if it is very clearly isolated, but that usually means less than 3 PRs. I have tried graphite `gt absorb` (which might use this project?) and it still creates a mess.
What I do that I wish more people did is that I heavily comment my own PRs with information that doesn't make sense in comments (for example on line X I add a comment: moved here from Y file).
> You have fixes for the bugs, but you don't want to shove them all into an opaque commit that says fixes
I actually like this, but split each fix in its own commit and during review I answer to comments with: "fixed in commit {commit-sha}". So _often_ bugs are introduced during PR review, if the fixes are isolated it is easier to see what changes between review rounds.
I do try to split the work if it is very clearly isolated, but that usually means less than 3 PRs. I have tried graphite `gt absorb` (which might use this project?) and it still creates a mess.
What I do that I wish more people did is that I heavily comment my own PRs with information that doesn't make sense in comments (for example on line X I add a comment: moved here from Y file).
> You have fixes for the bugs, but you don't want to shove them all into an opaque commit that says fixes
I actually like this, but split each fix in its own commit and during review I answer to comments with: "fixed in commit {commit-sha}". So _often_ bugs are introduced during PR review, if the fixes are isolated it is easier to see what changes between review rounds.