I’ve worked in a PR based model for 3+ years for now (including 1 year at TW). It is time for me take a critical look at these 2 approaches.


  • PR - Pull Request Something that you would find in Github
  • MR - Merge Request Something you’d find in Gitlab

Arguments I’ve heard against the MR/PR based model

  1. Long lived feature branches

    I had this issue earlier when I’d develop the complete feature in one feature branch and open up a huge PR to merge it. This would lead to poor code review because of the sheer size of the PR. Though with time I learnt to create smaller PRs (slicing at a task level) for the feature I’m working on. I see this as a valid concern but we could still work around it.

  2. Not “really” doing CI

    Continuous integration is all about sending out smaller (in some cases feature flagged) units of changes to production. The whole feature branch model dis-allows that.

  3. Developer needs to switch context when reviewing

    We can all agree that context-switches can get tiring. The trade-off is that you get an opportunity to know your codebase better.

  4. It slows down the process

    I can’t argue for or against this, I’ve never done TBD but I feel this is very subjective and cannot be argued upon as well.

  5. Frequent Branch gardening - We might need to do branch gardening even when we do TBD (if syncing your feature branch with master is what you mean by branch gardening)

  6. Lack of trust on tests/pipeline - Would that change according to the model you choose ? I do not think that would be affected. You’d only merge your code when the pipeline is green, the only difference is that it now happens on the CI instead of your local machine.

  7. Control - This is true about PR based models, especially with the concept of ”code owners” who act as gatekeepers. This creates hierarchy, and I cannot build an opinion in my head on whether it is good or bad. Thinking of this differently, it ties back to trust, especially in a case where you have young devs, you’d need this control.

  8. Merge Hell - I feel this would be a problem in TBD as well. For example, this would happen if you probably sync with master and somebody did a painful refactor a while ago. It would break merge hell there too.

  9. Feature flagging not a pre-requisite - I have recently faced this problem, and I think TBD makes you more careful developer when it comes to pushing your code.

Good things about PR based model

  1. Low trust situations - This completely makes sense to me.
  2. Makes you very sure that two pairs of eyes have actually looked at the code
  3. There is more collaboration - The question being are there other ways of collaborating on code other than reviews?

Problems with TBD

  1. Need a disciplined team or maybe tooling to keep builds green - This is a valid concern, but I feel this is a need in the above model as well.
  2. An absolute need for pair programming - This is true given the fact that we want a pair of eyes looking at our code to minimise bugs.
  3. Under more mental pressure - that you’ve not broken anything unless you have a tight test suite.

Good things about TBD

  1. It forces you to follow certain best practices.
  2. You avoid spats and rabbit hole discussions around things like coding styles.

My conclusion from the above has been this:
 Use PR based model in only a low trust situation.

  1. This would mostly mean it could be used when we begin a project from scratch with an entirely new team. This would help everyone learn and reach to a certain level where there is enough trust(in people, pipeline, and test suite) eventually and create the foundation for doing TBD
  2. In a team that is already setup, the best way to do things is TBD but if a new dev walks in, we can enforce PR based reviews for them, and move them to TBD as trust builds.

PR descriptions in distributed teams Composiotion of team, seniors cannot pair

Low trust environments vs high trust environments, give the Bob example