> > commits can have comments and those comments can form discussions > With git you are rarely interested in particular commits; usually when someone is proposing a feature/bugfix it composes of many commits. As a reviewer I'm not interested in every "fixed typo" commit etc, but in the whole thing, since one commit can remove a behavior and another add it, I'm interested only in the result.
PRs have many other benefits * I am reviewing the code against current master * I see if there are any merge conflicts (since master could have advanced in the meantime) * If the submitter updates the feature I still have everything nicely bundled * I can have overall discussion about the proposed solution - this doesn't belong neither to commits, nor to issues since this is particular to the solution Of course it depends on your style, but for example for code reviews it is invaluable; even if both (submitter and reviewer) are contributors PR is still useful. But I am interested why you don't like pull requests; after all they are just annotated merges. Peter
