The what, why, and how of pull requests and source comments
- ID
- 14572
- Status
- summarized
- Published
- 16 Aug 2026, 3:58 PM
- Fetched
- 16 Aug 2026, 3:58 PM
- Provider
- The Register
- Category
- technology
- Original URL
- https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2026/08/16/the-what-why-and-how-of-pull-requests-and-source-comments/5287914
- Source URL
- https://www.theregister.com/headlines.atom
Summary
- Score
- 4.5
- Created
- 16 Aug 2026, 3:58 PM
- Tags
- Audience
- developersvibe_coders
What happened
Raymond Chen, a Microsoft veteran, clarified on his Old New Thing blog that PR descriptions are point-in-time persuasive writing aimed at convincing approvers to accept a change, while code comments are durable documentation about how the code works. The Register notes the distinction is timely given the volume of PRs and comments now generated by AI coding tools, some producing questionable annotations.
Why it matters
If your team uses AI coding assistants, establish a review convention now: AI-generated PR descriptions often fail Chen's 'persuasive writing' test because they describe what the code does rather than why it should be merged, and AI-generated inline comments frequently state the obvious or are outright wrong. Reviewers should treat both with skepticism and require human-authored justification for non-trivial changes.
Discussion angle
What does your team actually enforce in PR descriptions vs code comments when AI assistants generate both, and do you have a rule for when AI-generated comments must be rewritten or removed?