Pull and merge requests: same goals but different approaches

Pull requests and merge requests represent two fundamental tools for integrating code into a shared repository, but they are often confused or considered synonyms. In reality, although they share purposes and basic functionalities, they also reflect differences related to the environments in which they are used and certain nuances of approach.

Pull requests are a typical feature of GitHub and other systems inspired by its model; their purpose is to allow a developer to propose changes made in a branch of the repository, inviting the team to review, discuss, and approve the code before merging into the main branch.

Merge requests, adopted mainly by GitLab, play a similar role but add a deeper management of the change lifecycle, emphasizing integration with CI/CD pipelines, granular permission management, and traceability of linked tasks.

In both cases, the central idea is not to merge the code directly into the main branch, but to go through a formal process of review, discussion, and testing first: a mechanism that reduces the risk of introducing bugs, improves software quality, and facilitates teamwork.

Pull requests on GitHub allow easy comparison of changes, line-by-line commenting, suggesting modifications directly from the browser, and triggering automatic actions through workflows defined in the repository; reviewers can approve, request changes, or even merge the code, depending on permissions, and the process concludes when the code is accepted and merged.

Merge requests, although similar, are conceived as central elements of interaction in GitLab: each MR can be linked to one or more issues, which allows automatically closing associated tasks when the merge request is merged, providing a natural continuity between development and project management. Now, during the review of an MR, the team has a detailed view of the commits involved, the results of test pipelines, mergeability reports, and even data related to security and licenses, thus having a broader technical picture compared to a traditional PR. Moreover, GitLab encourages the early opening of merge requests: developers can start them even when the work is still in progress, favoring timely feedback and early identification of problems.

Both systems allow modifying the proposed code even after opening the request, either through the web, which allows quick modifications via browser, or through complete development environments or more commonly from the command line via Git.

The assignment of reviewers and the definition of approvers also follows a similar logic: in GitLab, assignment occurs with the quick action /assign or from the sidebar, with some differences based on the plan (for example, support for multiple assignees in Premium versions).

Merge options in both platforms include automatic mechanisms: GitHub proposes automatic merging when all checks pass, for example, while GitLab offers automatic merging even in the presence of failed checks, if authorized by reviewers.

Merge requests then offer more articulated control over branch concatenation situations: if an MR depends on another, GitLab can automatically update the destination of linked merge requests, avoiding conflicts and keeping the flow of changes orderly.

The closing of a request also happens with similar logic: both platforms allow manually closing a PR or MR if you decide to abandon development, but keeping intact the historical data, comments, and reviews.

GitLab also allows filtering activities of an MR very granularly, selecting only relevant event types (comments, changes, approvals, commits, etc.), a useful option for analyzing the history of a complex modification.

Although pull requests and merge requests essentially refer to the same concept, that is, a request for code review and merge, the GitLab approach tends to frame them as a tool integrated into the continuous development process, with broader formal controls and a tighter link with the DevOps cycle, while GitHub maintains a leaner vision focused on code comparison and developer interaction.

The choice between PR and MR is not just terminological: it depends on the ecosystem in which you work, the team’s workflows, and the importance attributed to automation, traceability, and process control.