Post History

If it's so large that you must link the repo rather than reposting code, I think it is too large to reasonably expect anyone to review. Bored people will read a couple dozen lines, and point out a thing or two. But nobody (?) is bored enough to audit 1k+ LoC just for the asking.

I personally would like to see a review of individual PRs focused around a specific goal. It is already good practice for a PR to be focused, which helps reviewers understand what sort of feedback specifically you are looking for.

The problem here is that if you start posting your PRs on the code review site, there's not much left to discuss in the Codidact post. All discussion would naturally go into the PR page. For example, Github has a great interface for commenting on individual lines, and instead of using that, posting a bunch of permalink in your Codidact answer seems silly. But then again, it saves you from creating/logging in to a Github account, and you get Codidact rep for it. I've also used exactly that approach many times in the past over Email or IM because it's sometimes easier to have a dialogue that way than over Github comments.

Re: concern about linkrot, it is possible to extract a PR in a unified patch format and duplicate it on Codidact. Although, for Github specifically, the concern seems silly to me. Github is not like some random wordpress blog, their links are not going to rot. Github spent over a decade working very hard to develop a system that ensures that.

So how do the powers-that-be feel about allowing PR review request in the Code Review section? It would be a good way to boost activity and give knowledgeable people a good reason to use the site.