it is not you!
i think most of the people feel the same way.
at least i do
i suspect that in your case a review is mandatory as well as fixing its comments.
from my perspective a review should be optional.
You should ask for a review if needed and ask whomever you consider worth making it.
You should be responsible for your code and have authority to change it without any PRs.
> 2) languages such as PL/SQL are much poorer than any modern programming language
true but it is for a reason.
For example you can replace/upgrade any piece of code on the running system transactionally. But in a modern programming language, let's say Java, it is not possible.
Should PL/SQL be similar to a "modern programming language" it would lose a lot of its perks.
Generally speaking PL/SQL is not much different from DDL like "create table ...". The latter is similar code describing "business logic"
many say that git has an intuitive/concise data model. But it seems that even git team itself has not quite got it.
Looking at one of the latest changes [1] in which a _new_ merge strategy (ort) was introduced and made default one can ask how is it possible that so fundamental change happened 15 years after git was created?
Maybe the model is not so simple as it wants to seem.
it is not you! i think most of the people feel the same way. at least i do
i suspect that in your case a review is mandatory as well as fixing its comments.
from my perspective a review should be optional. You should ask for a review if needed and ask whomever you consider worth making it. You should be responsible for your code and have authority to change it without any PRs.