Using git does not mean there is a PR process in place. Git can be used just in the way the GP describes, recklessly putting binaries onto cars.

Just because there's a PR process in place doesn't mean that it's any good. At one place, we desperately avoided some sections of the code base because we didn't want to trigger a PR that would force us to interact with the team running that section. They were slow, obnoxious and power mad.

A PR is only as good as the person evaluating it. You can't even say reliably that it's better than nothing because sometimes it isn't.

No, Tesla use Pull Requests too. It’s fairly standard GitHub usage, at least within the org I worked at. They also GitHub actions, though obviously the build tools are non-standard.

GitHub absolutely can be used without pull requests. I don't say that this is a good idea.

Are you saying at Tesla, GitHub can't be used without pull requests? You can for sure (obviously) just push to whatever branch you want for your GitHub hosted repository if that's your desire.

As a newbie software engineer who has forced push to main numerous times last week without a PR. I’m surprised by this discourse on HN.

Pull requests are a UI over branches, and the act of merging two branches. You don't need to use them at all.

> git checkout develop ; git merge feature-branch ; git push --force

Git with no PRs.

Please at least use --force-with-lease

I've replaced CI checks on pull requests with the scream test.