[hcarvalhoalves]

I agree.

It shouldn't disguise as a question if you're not really inviting a debate, doesn't feel honest IMO. When the imperative form is used the reader will often assume you know something they don't, and only argue when they see a problem or want to validate the assumption.

I believe the more the comments (annotations?) are about the code itself ("This should do X", "This is not doing Y") rather than a back-and-forth conversation ("What do you think about X?", "Have you thought about X?"), the less personal it feels, and the more the ego gets out of the way.

Same thing for denying PRs with "request changes" - I've had a few people say they avoid doing it because it feels aggressive, but knowing there's a problem and still letting it into production (and then have the PR author fix a much more costly mistake) isn't honest or professional.

[ProZsolt]

> the less personal it feels, and the more the ego gets out of the way.

That's why I usually use "We should do this" instead of "You should do this", and "Our code" not "Your code" because we are a team and we do this together.

I have no problem denying PRs or if somebody do this with mine. If we can't get to the same page, we just call the tech lead to break up the tie.