I do this as well, but there is a workflow problem to solve and that is: getting PRs merged when they need to be to continue working.
It's not a simple problem to solve, we can't all just jump because someone finished some work after all. But if the PRs are OK to rubber stamp, and merge, and they're safely behind a feature flag, then it could just be as simple as letting the submitter merge without the need for an extra review. That can of course be contentious, but then we can ask "why not?" and figure out what non-human gateways need to be added to help make it possible etc.
I'm finding myself increasingly interested in understanding what friction can be removed from the software review, merge and release process, without sacrificing safe, well tested, understandable code that follows good standards.
The question is, why are you not just merging them into main as you go? It's a bit of a smell when you "need" to merge branches into branches. It shows a lack of safety and ease in deployments, which is the real problem to solve IMO.
I mean, unless you work at an organisation that deals with a specific religion, I would say that they're all NSFW, as there's no reason to be using them at work, and they're bound to cause controvosy at some point.
Given the level of NSFW material in some of them (sex, violence, etc), I think it's not surprising they're getting labelled as such, even without the link to a religion.
It really depends on the decision, what was done, and the overall impact. If the decision is to migrate to microservices, a year in it may be reviewed and decided that the work has been far more than anticipated, and is too much for EVERYTHING to be migrated, and the decision changed.
Or it might be an architectural decision to change the hierarchy of some organisational structure. Again, it could be the correct call for the time, but as things evolve over a year, it may not be sufficiant a year later.
A year isn't a bad time to review, and if the decision is just a "yeah, duh, of course we'll continue", then it's a really quick conversation, but at least you're thinking about things.
As another data point, I run a k8s cluster on Hetzner (mainly for my own experience, as I'd rather learn on my pet projects vs production), and haven't had any Hetzner related issues with it.
So Hetzner is OK for the overly complex as well, if you wish to do so.
Except for when your data is in it. Migrating data on a running app is one of the worst things to deal with. I can understand using something simple and cut down for other things, but the DB is not the place I'd want to do that. Postgres isn't exactly hard to get going with, and will grow with you easily, so why trade that off for saving an hour or two at the start of the project?
It's not a simple problem to solve, we can't all just jump because someone finished some work after all. But if the PRs are OK to rubber stamp, and merge, and they're safely behind a feature flag, then it could just be as simple as letting the submitter merge without the need for an extra review. That can of course be contentious, but then we can ask "why not?" and figure out what non-human gateways need to be added to help make it possible etc.
I'm finding myself increasingly interested in understanding what friction can be removed from the software review, merge and release process, without sacrificing safe, well tested, understandable code that follows good standards.