At my work, we use Git as our version control system. We have a master branch, which I have direct commit access to. Sometimes I have to make a trivial fix, such as fixing a typo in documentation, and the unwritten standard in our office is that getting reviewers for that is a waste of time (please don't argue this point, changing company culture is not a battle I want to fight today). So I have two options for how to go about making my trivial change:Create a Pull RequestCreate a branch off of masterMake my trivial changePush the change to the branch remotelyGo the Web UI, which is the only way to make pull requests on our systemCreate a pull request with zero reviewers*Merge itDirect CommitMake my trivial changeCommit directly to masterThe end result for the two is the same; my change makes it into master. But the first method takes much more time than the second does. Assuming my team is not interested in reviewing the change, is there any reason, technical or organizational, that I would want to do the pull request rigmarole? 
If I have direct commit access, is there any reason to create a pull request for a small change requiring no feedback?
version control;git;pull requests