DanielLeens commented on PR #11487: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11487#issuecomment-6473576994
Thanks @nzw921rx for clarifying the after-3.1.0 schedule. I will respect that timing. The source conclusion for this unchanged head remains clear, and the old pending-CI wording is superseded by the latest check snapshot below. Any historical change-request entry still needs its owning reviewer or a write-capable maintainer to reconcile it; this reply does not dismiss another reviewer's decision. Gate snapshot (2026-10-28T15:45:13+00:00), head `3dc9e379242e6c48a050e979c4fe23a455573e81`: [Build](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/122617906432) is `SUCCESS`. CI was previously the only remaining technical gate in my conclusion; CI is now passing, so that CI objection is withdrawn and my technical conclusion is clear to proceed. Daniel currently has READ permission. I have not changed the effective GitHub review state to APPROVED; a write-capable maintainer must perform the final approve/dismiss action required by branch protection. Comparison recorded in this scan: base `dev`, `diverged`, ahead 17 / behind 38, no merge conflict. Branch drift is metadata here and is not an additional sync request. My source blocker is cleared, but an older CHANGES_REQUESTED opinion may remain in the review summary after a COMMENT-only technical conclusion. With Daniel currently READ-only, a write-capable maintainer must separately reconcile the effective approval/dismissal gate; this clarification does not claim that action was performed. -- 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]
