reviews = list(pr.get_reviews())
    review_by_user: dict[str, PullRequestReview] = {}
    for review in reviews:
        if review.user.login in review_by_user:
            stored_review = review_by_user[review.user.login]
            if review.submitted_at >= stored_review.submitted_at:
                review_by_user[review.user.login] = review
        else:

3. **Flow**:
   - Review promptly to avoid blocking progress.
   - Balance quality and speed—minor issues can be addressed later via issues, not PR blocks.
   - If unable to complete the review, tag another reviewer (e.g., `@username please take over`).

4. **Shared Responsibility**:
   - All MinIO contributors are reviewers. The first commenter on a PR owns the review unless they delegate.

            if label.name == "lang-all":
                is_lang = True
                break
        for review in pr.reviews.nodes:
            if review.author:
                authors[review.author.login] = review.author
                if is_lang:
                    translation_reviewers[review.author.login] += 1
        if pr.state == "MERGED" and pr.author:
            if is_lang:

* Add the specific language label.
* Add the label `awaiting-review`.

The label `awaiting-review` is special, only used for translations. A GitHub Action will detect it, then it will read the language label, and it will update the GitHub Discussions managing the translations for that language to notify people that there's a new translation to review.

* They are rarely updated after creation and initial review, and then become hard to follow, especially after important decisions are made
* They are not synced with the code to reflect the eventual solution that is committed
* Google Docs is not a "code-oriented" tool, like Markdown can be
* Review in Google Docs is not as simple as a PR code review in GitHub

## Decision

* Review those pull requests, requesting changes or approving them. For the languages I don't speak, I'll wait for several others to review the translation before merging.

/// tip

    attributes:
      value: |
        Translations are automatized with AI and then reviewed by native speakers. 🤖 🙋

        This allows us to keep them consistent and up-to-date.

        If there are several native speakers commenting on this discussion and
        committing to help review new translations, the FastAPI team will review it

name: 'Dependency Review'
on: [pull_request]

permissions:
  contents: read

jobs:
  dependency-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: 'Checkout Repository'
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - name: 'Dependency Review'

* Suggest a new **feature**.

**Note**: if you do it, then I'm going to ask you to also help others. 😉

## Review Pull Requests { #review-pull-requests }

You can help me review pull requests from others.

Again, please try your best to be kind. 🤗

---

Here's what to keep in mind and how to review a pull request:

### Understand the problem { #understand-the-problem }

**2. Valid?**

-   If the PR passes all the quality checks then we go ahead and assign a
    reviewer.
-   If the PR didn't meet the validation criteria, we request for additional
    changes to be made to PR to pass quality checks and send it back or on a
    rare occasion we may reject it.

**3. Review**

-   For a valid PR, reviewer (person familiar with the code/functionality)
    checks if the PR looks good or needs additional changes.