I haven't used this workflow but I imagine your concerns could be addressed.
> addressing merge conflicts
I actually think, from the pov of the change author, this workflow is better at this. Other code changes have to resolve conflicts with yours, not the other way around. The followup changes from review feedback can begin with conflicts addressed for you.
> tooling
I don't know how other platforms handle this, but on GitHub at least there is nothing stopping you from reviewing a merged PR. You can prevent pushing straight to the trunk while still allowing authors to merge their own PRs at will.
I do think your other points are clear drawbacks but on its face the practice doesn't seem without merit. Seems like the "show" point on the ship/show/ask spectrum.
> addressing merge conflicts
I actually think, from the pov of the change author, this workflow is better at this. Other code changes have to resolve conflicts with yours, not the other way around. The followup changes from review feedback can begin with conflicts addressed for you.
> tooling
I don't know how other platforms handle this, but on GitHub at least there is nothing stopping you from reviewing a merged PR. You can prevent pushing straight to the trunk while still allowing authors to merge their own PRs at will.
I do think your other points are clear drawbacks but on its face the practice doesn't seem without merit. Seems like the "show" point on the ship/show/ask spectrum.