[aredplug]

I believe a variant of: "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

... applies to code reviewers.

I like Google's review standard:

"In general, reviewers should favor approving a [PR] once it is in a state where it definitely improves the overall code health of the system being worked on, even if the [PR] isn’t perfect."

https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/reviewer/stand...

[Osiris]

I often approve a PR with the comment "Approved with comments".

In other words, I didn't notice any bugs but I have some suggestions. I'll let you decide if you want to make the changes or not.

[aredplug]

+1. The job of reviewer on shared codebases is advisory, not as a gatekeeper.

If people choose to ignore comments, then that's a behavioral issue worth escalating.

[un_montagnard]

I've been in teams where those comments are never addressed because the pressure is on "push something that roughly solves the task so you can show something during demo".