The PR Queue: A Humiliation for Software Engineering

For years, the Pull Request (PR) queue has reigned supreme as the cornerstone of collaborative software development. It's become so ingrained in our workflows that questioning its efficacy feels almost heretical. We diligently create branches, submit PRs, await reviews, and finally, merge our code, believing we are following a streamlined, efficient process. But what if this seemingly orderly queue is, in fact, a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of Software Development Engineering (SDE)? What if, instead of streamlining, it's actually hindering innovation and, dare we say, humiliating the true potential of SDE?  

This article argues that the PR queue, while offering a veneer of control, suffers from deep-seated flaws, particularly when dealing with complex, interdependent codebases. We will explore these flaws through the lens of consistency and conflict resolution, contrasting the PR queue with a radical alternative: a "political alignment" model that embraces the dynamic and collaborative essence of software creation.

Levels of Consistency and the Illusion of Control

To understand the limitations of the PR queue, we must first consider the different levels of "consistency" we strive for in software:

• Logical Correctness: The Ultimate Goal. At the highest level, we aim for logical correctness. This means our software functions as intended, fulfilling its business logic and requirements. It's verified through rigorous testing and represents the true measure of a system's success.

• Transactional Consistency (ACID): Database-Level Integrity. Relational databases offer transactional consistency (ACID properties), ensuring data integrity within the database itself. Transactions guarantee that database rules are maintained, preventing corruption and ensuring valid states. However, this is database-centric and doesn't inherently guarantee application-level logical correctness.  

• Eventual Consistency: Accepting Temporary Divergence. In distributed systems, eventual consistency acknowledges that replicas might temporarily diverge but will eventually converge. Strategies like "Last Write Wins" (LWW) are simple but can lead to data loss and logical inconsistencies at the application level, prioritizing availability over immediate correctness.  

The PR queue, in its attempt to impose order, implicitly promises a form of consistency. But what kind of consistency does it actually deliver, and at what cost?

The PR Queue: A "Workshop Streamline" Gone Wrong

The PR queue model, in its essence, treats software development like a workshop streamline. It envisions code changes as items moving sequentially through a process: development -> review -> merge. This linear, factory-like approach, while seemingly organized, fundamentally misunderstands the interconnected and dynamic nature of software.

Here's where the "humiliation" of SDE begins:

• Contextual Invalidation: The Rework Cascade. PRs are processed sequentially. When an early PR merges, it dramatically alters the codebase, creating a new context for all subsequent PRs in the queue. PRs developed and even reviewed based on the old context can become outdated, logically inconsistent, or require significant rework. In extreme cases, it feels like only the first PR in a sequence truly "works as intended," while all others become reactive adaptations to a constantly shifting foundation. This leads to wasted effort and demotivates developers who find their carefully crafted code invalidated by changes beyond their control.

• The Meaningless Queue Dilemma: Isolation or Chaos? To mitigate contextual invalidation, teams might try to create PRs that are as independent as possible. However, this leads to a deeper problem: if PRs are truly independent and don't interact, why are they even in the same source repository? A repository of completely unrelated code fragments lacks coherence and undermines the very purpose of a unified codebase. We are left with a dilemma: a PR queue managing interdependent code leads to constant invalidation, while a PR queue managing independent code becomes largely meaningless for a cohesive software system.

• Rework and Inefficiency: The Treadmill of Adaptation. The constant need to adapt to shifting contexts turns software development into a reactive treadmill. Developers spend significant time reworking code, resolving merge conflicts that are not truly conflicts in logic but rather artifacts of the sequential, context-unaware queue. This inefficiency stifles productivity and drains developer energy.

• Stifled Innovation: The Rigidity of the Line. The PR queue, with its emphasis on linear processing and gatekeeping, can stifle innovation. The rigid process discourages experimentation, rapid iteration, and the exploration of diverse approaches. The "workshop streamline" prioritizes control and predictability over the dynamic, creative exploration that fuels true software innovation.

By imposing a simplistic, linear process on a fundamentally complex and interconnected domain, the PR queue, in its flawed implementation, can feel like a humiliation of Software Development Engineering, reducing it to a mere assembly line instead of the dynamic, intellectual, and collaborative endeavor it should be.

"Political Alignment": A Democratic Model for Software Innovation

Is there a better way? We propose a radical shift towards a "political alignment" model, drawing inspiration from democracy and collaborative governance. This model embraces the dynamic, conflict-rich nature of software development and seeks to harness it for innovation, rather than suppress it with a rigid queue.

Imagine a software project as a parliament or congress, where:

• Branch Diversity and Idea Exploration: Different branches become platforms for exploring diverse solutions, driven by developers with varying mindsets and ideas. This mirrors the diversity of viewpoints in a political system. Instead of aiming for a single "correct" approach upfront, we encourage experimentation and parallel exploration.

• Observational Alignment and Emergent Merging: Branches are not isolated silos. Developers actively "watch" each other's branches, seeking "political alignment" – areas where different approaches can synergize or where common ground emerges. Merging becomes less of a forced integration and more of a natural alignment of compatible and valuable ideas.

• Constructive Conflict and Argumentation: Conflicts are not suppressed but embraced as opportunities for rigorous debate and refinement. Code reviews become "argumentation sessions", where developers challenge each other's approaches, explore trade-offs, and collectively arrive at better solutions through intellectual friction.  

• Mainstream Branches as Evolving Consensus: Instead of a single, monolithic "main" branch, multiple "mainstream" branches might emerge, each representing a distinct, viable solution path. These branches are like different "political platforms," each with its own set of strengths and values. Think of different engine types – gas vs. electric – both valid, serving different needs.

• Voting/Selection for Release: A Democratic Choice. The decision of which branch to release becomes a "vote" or a selection process, reflecting a democratic choice based on current priorities, market needs, or technical considerations. This acknowledges that there isn't always one "best" solution, but rather a selection of viable options, each with its own trade-offs and suitability for different contexts.

Key Differences: PR Queue vs. "Political Alignment"

Conclusion: Towards a More Human and Dynamic SDE

The PR queue, in its attempt to impose a rigid, linear process, may be inadvertently hindering the very essence of Software Development Engineering. By ignoring the inherent complexity, interdependencies, and dynamic nature of codebases, it can lead to wasted effort, stifled innovation, and a sense of frustration for developers.

The "political alignment" model offers a radical alternative, embracing the dynamic, collaborative, and sometimes conflicting nature of software creation. It suggests moving away from a "workshop streamline" and towards a more democratic, intellectually vibrant ecosystem where innovation flourishes through the interplay of diverse ideas, constructive debate, and a shared commitment to building valuable software.

While the "political alignment" model presents its own challenges in terms of coordination and potential for chaos, it points towards a future of SDE that is more human-centric, more adaptive, and ultimately, more innovative. Perhaps it's time to question the dominance of the PR queue and explore more dynamic and collaborative approaches that truly harness the power of collective intelligence in software engineering. The future of SDE might not be in the perfectly streamlined workshop, but in the vibrant, sometimes messy, but ultimately more creative and innovative arena of "political alignment."

Checkout how https://ondemandenv.dev encourage innovation with dynamic environments.