DanielLeens commented on issue #11543: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11543#issuecomment-5081317368
Thanks for breaking this out from #11513 and for keeping the scope focused on merge queue itself. I rechecked the current repo state on July 26, 2026. We now have the required `Build` check on `dev`, but I still do not see a `merge_group` workflow or any queue-specific validation path in the repository. So this is still a real design decision, not something that is already implicitly covered. At the same time, I agree this should not become a second independent rule system. The only strong reason to add GitHub Merge Queue here is if we can point to a concrete gap that the current required-check flow does not cover well enough in practice. So I think the next step for this issue is to make that gap explicit: 1. what failure mode is still slipping through with the current required `Build` gate 2. what `merge_group` validation would prove beyond the existing PR-head / required-check flow 3. what extra operational cost the project would take on for queue maintenance and failure handling If those points stay abstract, I would keep this folded into the broader CI redesign discussion in #11513 rather than advancing it as a separate rollout item. If you can ground it with a few concrete integration-conflict examples, this discussion will become much easier for the community to evaluate. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
