[rkomorn]

I don't see it that way.

Having non-blocking comments leaves room for the discussion you want.

It's your job as the PR submitter to advocate for your code and shepherd it through.

Either you, indeed, work with the reviewer who made the comments to resolve them, or you have the option to seek out another if you think the feedback isn't valid enough to address.

Edit: TBH I don't get why you'd see a non-blocking comment differently, eg not meaning "let's get this done".

[AppleBananaPie]

If a system requires a sign off for a PR to be submitted then it's a collaborative effort for the PR to succeed.

Someone just leaving comments and not signing off on reviews isn't helping unblock anyone and should put in more effort to be willing to sign off and move the work forward. If the most people in the org thought this way nothing would be committed and everyone would have 'non-blocking' comments to deal with.

Another way to look at this is in absence of another code reviewer, not signing off after commenting is equivalent to passively blocking the PR and can be a bit toxic depending on the circumstance.

I'm probably missing a scenario (maybe there's a bunch of people you know will review the code for instance) that this makes sense so happy to learn where/when specifically it makes sense :)

[rkomorn]

> not signing off after commenting is equivalent to passively blocking the PR and can be a bit toxic depending on the circumstance

Blocking a PR can also be toxic "depending on the circumstance".

I see zero toxicity in leaving comments without blocking. It's never prevented the people I've worked with from getting work done.

I've worked at three large tech companies and none of them had this "block PRs" mentality but they all got stuff done. The reviewers understand their roles: they leave feedback, if there are questions, they answer them. If the feedback's handled, they re-review.

It works exactly the way you say it should, minus the "blocked/changes requested" status on a PR. Maybe precisely because we understand that a PR is blocked until it's approved anyway, and the green check is the goal.

All the opportunities for dysfunction are the same: people can still bikeshed, they can not review, they can not come back and re-review, etc. None of that is affected by the "changes requested" vs "comment" dichotomy.

Frankly, the "we can't collaborate without blocking PRs" take seems strangely dysfunctional to me.

[AppleBananaPie]

I think I don't understand the last sentence. This seems the opposite of what I wrote ?

As for leaving comments without blocking I do not mean it is always or even commonly toxic but that I've seen instances where it could be argued to be so or potentially unhelpful.

I think the misunderstanding might be when you or your team leave comments without blocking are you going to sign off after they are addressed or are you leaving them on a review you ultimately don't feel comfortable signing off on even if they're addressed?

How often does someone leave comments on a review they would never feel comfortable signing off on either way because they don't know the area? I think I'm in agreement with you - leaving comments without blocking and signing off after they're addressed or if someone else signs off and mine aren't addressed that's fine. I'd block the review if it was something I was that concerned with.

[rkomorn]

> I think I don't understand the last sentence. This seems the opposite of what I wrote ?

I guess I misunderstood, and I think I attributed some context from others' previous comments to you. My bad, sorry. :) Looks like we generally agree.

When we leave comments, even without blocking, we're going to sign off when they're addressed (assuming someone else doesn't sign off first). That's our job as reviewers.

If we don't feel comfortable signing off (eg: because the diffs also touch an area outside our knowledge) then we just comment to that effect. ie "this part LGTM, but someone else from <team X> needs to sign off."

The main thing is: if we have comments on a PR that we think should be addressed, but aren't "do not merge this under any circumstances", then we just don't select the "request changes" option, and it doesn't seem to cause problems for us.

That said, if I worked somewhere where there was established guidance to either accept or request changes, then I'd do that without a second thought.

[AppleBananaPie]

Ahhh solid yup sounds like we're on the same page then thanks for the extra explanation ! :)