On 7/18/22 12:32, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm not following - I'm talking about the patch author needing a while to > address the higher level feedback given by a reviewer. The author might put > out a couple new versions, which each might still benefit from review. In that > - pretty common imo - situation I don't think it's useful for the reviewer > that provided the higher level feedback to be removed from the patch.
Okay, I think I get it now. Thanks. There's still something off in that case that I can't quite articulate... Is it your intent to use Reviewer as a signal that "I'll come back to this eventually"? As a signal to other prospective reviewers that you're handling the patch? How should a CFM move things forward when they come to a patch that's been responded to by the author but the sole Reviewer has been silent? --Jacob
