On Tue, 2026-08-11 at 22:54 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > > In my personal opinion, this is (or should be) a rather exceptional > > case since incremental development should be incrementally submitted > > and reviewed, at a sustainable pace, and with the possibility of > > incorporating review feedback from earlier merge requests. > > [...] > > > If you have more changes already submitted, that will only result in > > endless conflicts... > > Stacking MRs actually seem like a reasonable way to keep the number of > conflicts down over having diverging commits in two separate MRs one of > which is the base for another.
I think the conflicts will occur either way. Say we have branchA and branchB, and there is already a merge request A with branchA to master. Now branchB will have the same commits regardless of whether merge request B targets branchA (stacked MR) or master directly (dependent MR). Either way, making changes in branchA will require conflict resolution in branchB and a second push to merge request B. What changes is just how the MR is displayed in the UI.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
