everything except +2 is unapprove.
The nuance is comments on the PR itself, rather than the state of the approval, which is binary (or ternary, if you want to count leaving it in an unknown state for extended periods of time).
The nuance is comments on the PR itself, rather than the state of the approval, which is binary (or ternary, if you want to count leaving it in an unknown state for extended periods of time).
Someone else knows the other portion well and sees the +1 and decides to +2.
In practice this ends the stalemate where partial owners don't feel confident to approve the whole thing
Having several people review each separate parts but not understanding the others' can cause interaction bugs. If such bugs cannot happen (say, due to modularity, or type safety guarantees etc), then it won't be the case where you need to have a partial approve.
I am not a fan of partial approve. Either you think the code is approvable, or it isn't.
You can require approvals from N domains from (potentially) different people.
Some people think that PR status can also communicate rationales and partial approvals.
Some think that should be done with tags and comments.
Lots of request systems have multiple stages between "open" and "resolved".