Here's a hypothetical(?) question: if your article comes back with recommendations for minor revisions after quite some time, and in particular after many(!) interesting related developments, how best should one refer to that subsequent work? Let's of course assume that the original submission was posted publicly way back then (on arxiv). It feels odd if the paper would be significantly revised according to work that comes afterwards, but at the same time it feels odd if it completely ignores all said work. A greater passage of time is what makes this dissonance even more intense. Any thoughts/advice??