<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>eloisius</author><text>I’d settle for them making PRs as useful as they were in 2015, before they messed up some of the most basic functionality: showing the diff, and showing review comments. They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. Then, once you submit a review, they only show 10 comments. In the middle, there’s an easy-to-miss “load more comments” button.&lt;p&gt;These are the two most fundamental features of a PR. How could they decide so few as 10 is the right number of comments?</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Pull Request File Tree Feedback</title><url>https://github.com/github/feedback/discussions/12341</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>politelemon</author><text>Bitbucket Server and Gitlab have this feature and it&amp;#x27;s quite useful for very large pull requests as you can easily see the folder structure of the file you&amp;#x27;re reviewing, for that bit extra bit of visual context.  Bitbucket&amp;#x27;s search box is slightly better because it also does a code search within the PR, it helps you quickly find specific words (say, a class name) across all the changed files.  Gitlab&amp;#x27;s only does a file name filter.&lt;p&gt;Though relatively late, I am glad it&amp;#x27;s coming to Github, more people can benefit from this kind of pull request presentation.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Pull Request File Tree Feedback</title><url>https://github.com/github/feedback/discussions/12341</url></story>