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