To pile on to the litany of complaints, I think PRs are a rather poor abstraction. It’s not a good way to review code. If I’m doing an actual review of anything complex, I’ll check out the branch, step through the code, jump around in the IDE: this is how we work with code, not through a fairly unreadable git diff.

PRs have no scope and no way to designate scope. What do I want from each reviewer? At some point, the PR becomes superfluous to adequate code review and communication around said review.

Ultimately they can be used to micromanage and gatekeep merges to main. This is the PR at its worst.

Overall I’m not a big fan, it feels like a necessary evil to meet the demands of Big Agile.