From 0d5ff41c0c9c19a00e8041c4d09cb3b5c8973a49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Akshay Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:02:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] write about round-based reviews --- pages/blog/pulls.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/pages/blog/pulls.md b/pages/blog/pulls.md index 7ffb1e4..6dfb610 100644 --- a/pages/blog/pulls.md +++ b/pages/blog/pulls.md @@ -57,12 +57,24 @@ Here's an example. rounds of reviews. -[!!!write more about how this is good?] - -Hitting the 'View Patch' button lets you see the diff for each round. -Inter-diffing -- what changed *between* two rounds -- is planned! - -[!!!close off this section] +Rounds are a far superior to standard branch-based +approaches: + +- Submissions are immutable: how many times have your + reviews gone out-of-date because the author pushed commits + _during_ your review? +- Reviews are attached to submissions: at a glance, it is + easy to tell which comment applies to which "version" of the + pull-request +- The author can choose when to resubmit! They can commit as + much as they want, but a new round begins when they choose + to hit "resubmit" +- It is possible to "interdiff" and observe changes made + across submissions (this is coming very soon to Tangled!) + +This [post](https://mitchellh.com/writing/github-changesets) +by Mitchell Hashimoto goes into further detail on what can +be achieved with round-based-review. ## fine, we'll make a patch ourselves -- 2.51.2