Reviewing so called Pull Requests at $dayjob
Rene Kita describes his experience reviewing pull requests using a Microsoft-hosted git platform at his day job. He outlines the challenges of the web UI and handling force‑push updates, which erase previous versions of the review. He proposes a workflow that creates local branches and uses git range‑diff to compare revisions before copying comments back into the web interface.
- ▪Kita has spent three years embedded in a customer’s team where they use a Microsoft product to host git repositories and manage pull requests.
- ▪The web‑based review UI is considered poor, and force‑pushed updates remove the prior version, forcing reviewers to re‑review the entire patch set.
- ▪Kita’s workaround involves checking out separate local branches (v1 and v2) from the remote feature branch and using git range‑diff to compare the two revisions.
- ▪For detailed review he runs git log -p --reverse, pipes the output into an editor to add comments, and then copies those comments into the web interface.
Lobsters files mainly under programming. We currently carry 187 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Rkta |
| Canonical URL | https://rkta.de/dayjob-pr-review.html |
| Publication time | Sun, 17 May 2026 10:40:32 -0500 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-17T16:03:20.799Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-17T16:03:25.083Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | i5I_flxcgKIy |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Rene Kita's weblog Blog About RSS Links Code Reviewing so called Pull Requests at $dayjob 2026-01-14 In the last three years I spend quite some time being embedded in a customer's team for my $dayjob. They use a lovely Microsoft product to host the git repositories and do so-called "pull requests"(PR)#0 to bring changes into the master branch. As expected from a Microsoft product the UI to review a PR is absolutely horrible. Another problem, as with all web-based review interfaces, is reviewing iterations after the initial review. Let's say I create a PR and get first feedback, e.g. some smalls nits or oopsies I included in one of my commits.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Rkta.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Rkta
