If you set a "Requires approval" + "Require review from Code Owners" in branch protection, then drafts let you collect your thoughts before publishing them and give security/confidence that things won't be merged prematurely. You can also comment (or not) before approving, and with CODEOWNERS can set where you need to be involved vs someone else. 

_redacted

Ah, I haven't played much with draft saving on GH. Maybe that will be enough.

I like to progressively enhance any kind of work that I do, e.g. draft 1, draft 2, draft 3, publish1, publish2, publish3. Most code review tools don't seem to support it (at least not in an obvious way).

Perhaps I'm overthinking, but I also like to minimize RTT when communicating about things.

If still a "need to check these things" kind of comment, be verbal about it. Nobody in dev will expect you to know every single thing about your codebase. You may even get further analysis and answers from the author. At the very least, you are honest about the delay, and are giving an opportunity for the author to speed it up.

tech

Code review tool recommendations

k00b

> keep the review in draft 

Ah, I haven't played much with draft saving on GH. Maybe that will be enough.

> Why tag and not comment directly?

I like to progressively enhance any kind of work that I do, e.g. draft 1, draft 2, draft 3, publish1, publish2, publish3. Most code review tools don't seem to support it (at least not in an obvious way). 

Perhaps I'm overthinking, but I also like to minimize RTT when communicating about things.

> If still a "need to check these things" kind of comment, be verbal about it. Nobody in dev will expect you to know every single thing about your codebase. You may even get further analysis and answers from the author. At the very least, you are honest about the delay, and are giving an opportunity for the author to speed it up.

Great recs.