gh stack merge retries against an unmerged base PR, then silently rebases and dismisses approvals on the dependent PR
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100
Research direction
Start at the gh stack merge command and the README behavior described in the issue; reproduce the flow with a stacked pair like PRs #104 and #111, then inspect the merge, rebase, review, and check events. Done means the command handles the unmerged base safely and makes any force-push side effect explicit before changing an approved dependent PR.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Phase 1 — 3 failed attempts before anything merged (15:26–15:31 UTC):
Triggered "Squash and merge stack" from the PR #111 web panel three times. Each attempt logged a real auto_merge_disabled event on PR #111 only (15:26:58, 15:27:55, 15:30:34) — none on PR #104, the actual bottom-of-stack PR that must merge first. Per the README, gh stack merge is meant to be "all-or-nothing," but it appears to arm merge/auto-merge on the dependent PR before confirming the base PR has landed, hits an unresolved mergeable state, and aborts instead of waiting or retrying automatically — surfacing as a confusing "not mergeable" error with no indication that nothing had actually merged.
Phase 2 — merge manually, but silently strips approvals (15:35:23–15:35:29 UTC):
PR #104 squash-merged successfully. Immediately after:
- PR #111 was rebased — all 3 commits got new SHAs with identical timestamps (a full rewrite, not just a base pointer change), then force-pushed.
- All 3 existing approving reviews were dismissed (confirmed via
review_dismissedevents), revertingreviewDecisiontoREVIEW_REQUIRED. - Every CI check reset to
pending.
Our org's ruleset has dismiss_stale_reviews_on_push: false — this dismissal happened regardless, because it was a history-rewriting force-push rather than an append-only push (which GitHub dismisses reviews for unconditionally). That's expected GitHub behavior for that specific push, but the push itself was an undisclosed side effect of the merge action — the PR content is byte-identical to what was approved, yet 3 reviewers now have to re-approve and CI has to fully rerun, with zero warning in the UI before this happened.
Ask: gh stack merge should either (a) confirm the base PR is actually merged before touching the dependent PR, and (b) warn — or offer a non-rebasing retarget path — before force-pushing an already-approved PR as a side effect of merging the layer beneath it.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 1.5k
- Forks
- 73
- Avg merge
- 1d 8h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from github/gh-stack
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 92/100
-
feature request topic: cli - general
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
feature request topic: auto-merge
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
bug topic: docs
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 68/100
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
NVIDIA/gpu-operator#2955 ·
-
agentic-workflows
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
kovidgoyal/kitty#10516 ·
-
bug
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
cisagov/vulnrichment#337 ·
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 72/100