> I would think that sometimes you really do want to have a back and forth conversation in the PR, rather than just a "make this change
I did not intend to imply that back and forth conversations would not happen. Instead, the preference would be to first address the code. Sometimes it's not clear, there are difficulties, different options, all worth a conversation.
My ultimate thesis is that I think commits linking to external sources does not scale well when doing an investigation into code history.
I suppose a person could do links to images in commit messages, I certainly do put links in commit comments. Though, I would agree regarding having images in PR is good. When reviewing UI changes, or making UI changes, the before and after pictures (in a PR) are super helpful.
Though, again, I view the PR and its content as "for the reviewer" and not for the "bug investigator". Maybe it would be a cool git feature to be able to view images in-situ. Overall, I don't think this one weakness changes the picture of going to an external too for N commits scales very poorly. I feel it is very similar to the movement that combined code and documentation together (very long ago, api docs like javadoc used to be in different places). All that is to say, centrality of information is key IMHO for efficiency when looking at commits at scale
PS: thanks for the pointer on commit search =D
I was not aware of it
I did not intend to imply that back and forth conversations would not happen. Instead, the preference would be to first address the code. Sometimes it's not clear, there are difficulties, different options, all worth a conversation.
My ultimate thesis is that I think commits linking to external sources does not scale well when doing an investigation into code history.
I suppose a person could do links to images in commit messages, I certainly do put links in commit comments. Though, I would agree regarding having images in PR is good. When reviewing UI changes, or making UI changes, the before and after pictures (in a PR) are super helpful.
Though, again, I view the PR and its content as "for the reviewer" and not for the "bug investigator". Maybe it would be a cool git feature to be able to view images in-situ. Overall, I don't think this one weakness changes the picture of going to an external too for N commits scales very poorly. I feel it is very similar to the movement that combined code and documentation together (very long ago, api docs like javadoc used to be in different places). All that is to say, centrality of information is key IMHO for efficiency when looking at commits at scale
PS: thanks for the pointer on commit search =D I was not aware of it