[nhumrich]

"approval" isnt really needed at all unless there are compliance requirements. A comment or reaction of :+1: is usually sufficient. Two years ago, github itself didn't even have approvals on pull requests. So yes, I think it aligns well with a feature managers need, not individual contributors.

[spankalee]

+1 is ok, but it's not the same as concrete approval bit.

GitHub was late to add it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a glaringly missing feature from GitHub before then. Other open-source system like Gerrit and Phabricator have had approvals since their inception, I believe.

edit, just to say: I really don't get the manager tie in to approvals. I've never worked on a team where approvals were done by managers. It's always other team members, and especially required when you have code owners of different parts of the codebase.

[nixgeek]

Point being made ain’t that managers approve merges, it’s that the feature is generally something you may want to enforce formal peer review once your team grows beyond 5-6 people.

In contrast like SAST and DAST is far more common to be a requirement in large enterprises and that’s in the much more expensive tier as a result.

[Hamuko]

>reaction of :+1: is usually sufficient

If I remember correctly, you don't actually get notified of any +1 reaction.