DanielLeens commented on PR #11615: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11615#issuecomment-6473922180
Thanks for the contribution. The CI fact cited in my previous conclusion has changed; this follow-up updates that gate on the unchanged reviewed head, without issuing another full source review. Gate snapshot (2026-10-28T15:59:00+00:00), head `4ddeb9a0be2370e5fc4cf7c83397a2236fe87f2e`: [Build](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/122810121063) is `ACTION_REQUIRED`. The exact blocking stage is **Build workflow-run detection**: the check says no fork Build was found for this SHA. This is not an executed test failure and does not by itself prove that fork Actions is disabled. Open the fork Actions tab, enable workflows if needed, then manually run the existing Build workflow for this PR branch. If a matching run already exists, link it for a maintainer to reconcile the aggregate. No empty commit or speculative dependency change is requested. Upstream check: current dev retains the fork-run adoption workflow and its scheduled/manual status-refresh path. A base sync alone cannot enable fork Actions or supply a missing exact-head workflow run, so I am not prescribing sync as the fix for this activation gate. My [previous source conclusion](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11615#pullrequestreview-5681320016) remains clear for the reviewed scope. CI is not being passed by inference, and this follow-up is not an effective approval. Comparison recorded in this scan: base `dev`, `diverged`, ahead 5 / behind 73, no merge conflict. Branch drift is metadata here and is not an additional sync request. -- 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]
