docs(stacks): stop saying a failure cascades through a stack by jd · Pull Request #12846 · Mergifyio/docs · GitHub
Skip to content

docs(stacks): stop saying a failure cascades through a stack - #12846

Draft
jd wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
devs/jd/jd/cascade-dequeue-automatic-trigger/stop-saying-failure-cascades-stack--553550ad
Draft

jd wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
devs/jd/jd/cascade-dequeue-automatic-trigger/stop-saying-failure-cascades-stack--553550ad

Conversation

@jd

@jd jd commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Three pages said the queue cascades failures through a Mergify stack: the
intro of the stacked pull requests page ("cascades failures so the rest of
the stack stops cleanly when something breaks"), the team guide ("cascades
dequeues if any predecessor fails") and the plain Git comparison ("a failure
cascades cleanly to the rest"). The cascade the Cascade Dequeue section
documents is the manual one: taking a PR out of the queue with
@mergifyio dequeue, the dashboard or the API dequeues every successor still
queued, under stack-predecessor-dequeued. A PR that fails its checks does
not take its successors out with that reason. The three sentences now say
what does happen.

The ask was to add a failed batch merge to the Cascade Dequeue section as an
automatic trigger. I checked the engine before writing that, and it does not
hold. The only automatic path that uses this reason covers GitHub-native
stack chains landed in a single merge call. When GitHub refuses that call,
the engine ejects the top PR of the chain, which has nothing above it, so no
successor is dequeued with it. Documenting that trigger would describe
something users never see, so the section keeps its manual triggers only.

Fixes Mergifyio/ci-bot#511

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) noreply@anthropic.com

Three pages said the queue cascades failures through a Mergify stack: the
intro of the stacked pull requests page ("cascades failures so the rest of
the stack stops cleanly when something breaks"), the team guide ("cascades
dequeues if any predecessor fails") and the plain Git comparison ("a failure
cascades cleanly to the rest"). The cascade the Cascade Dequeue section
documents is the manual one: taking a PR out of the queue with
`@mergifyio dequeue`, the dashboard or the API dequeues every successor still
queued, under `stack-predecessor-dequeued`. A PR that fails its checks does
not take its successors out with that reason. The three sentences now say
what does happen.

The ask was to add a failed batch merge to the Cascade Dequeue section as an
automatic trigger. I checked the engine before writing that, and it does not
hold. The only automatic path that uses this reason covers GitHub-native
stack chains landed in a single merge call. When GitHub refuses that call,
the engine ejects the top PR of the chain, which has nothing above it, so no
successor is dequeued with it. Documenting that trigger would describe
something users never see, so the section keeps its manual triggers only.

Fixes Mergifyio/ci-bot#511

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Change-Id: I553550adb0308684a2d91623291b2922c8a4d7e7
Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings September 15, 2026 10:53
@mergify
mergify Bot had a problem deploying to Mergify Merge Protections September 15, 2026 10:53 Failure
@mergify

mergify Bot commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mergify
mergify Bot requested a review from a team September 15, 2026 10:56

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟢 Approval recommended

Remaining feedback is limited to minor wording nits and does not block approval.

Pull request overview

Updates stack documentation to clarify that cascade dequeues are manual queue-removal behavior, not failure propagation.

Changes:

  • Corrects merge queue stack behavior descriptions.
  • Updates team and plain Git comparison guidance.
  • Clarifies effects on successors still in the queue.
File summaries
File Description
src/content/docs/stacks/team.mdx Updates team guidance.
src/content/docs/stacks/compare/plain-git.mdx Corrects comparison wording.
src/content/docs/merge-queue/stacks.mdx Clarifies dequeue behavior.
Review details

Suppressed comments (3)

src/content/docs/merge-queue/stacks.mdx:19

  • This summary is still broad enough to imply that any dequeue—including the automatic checks-failed removal—cascades to successors, which is the behavior this change is correcting. Please distinguish a user-initiated dequeue and retain the condition that only successors still in the queue are affected.
  up the stack, keeps stacked PRs together when batching, and dequeues the
  PRs above any PR you take out of the queue.

src/content/docs/stacks/compare/plain-git.mdx:116

  • The phrase “dequeueing a PR” still implies that any dequeue—including the automatic checks-failed removal—cascades, which contradicts the behavior this change is correcting. Please identify this as a manual dequeue and limit it to successors that are still queued.
bottom-up, and dequeuing a PR also dequeues the PRs above it. See

src/content/docs/stacks/team.mdx:99

  • The phrase “dequeueing a PR” still implies that any dequeue—including the automatic checks-failed removal—cascades, which contradicts the behavior this change is correcting. Please identify this as a manual dequeue and limit it to successors that are still queued.
keeps stacked PRs together when batching, and dequeuing a PR also dequeues
the PRs above it. See [Stacked PRs in the Merge Queue](/merge-queue/stacks)
  • Files reviewed: 3/3 changed files
  • Comments generated: 0
  • Review effort level: Lite

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants