DanielLeens commented on PR #12862: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12862#issuecomment-6473608882
Thanks for the discussion about approval versus rebasing. The latest conflict state below is authoritative; if conflicts are present, resolve them before the final approval/queue step, preserve both migration entries and post the resulting head and Build link. The range-diff summary suggested by @SEZ9 is useful evidence, but any new head still needs a complete re-review. My source clearance for the unchanged reviewed head is separate from a committer's approval and queue permissions. Gate snapshot (2026-10-28T15:46:34+00:00), head `7b9d942555fd52615ee25a2b626151b25fb0757e`: [Build](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/121484733552) 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 CI was previously the only remaining technical gate in my conclusion; CI is now passing, so that CI objection is withdrawn and my technical conclusion is clear to proceed.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. Separately, GitHub reports merge conflicts with `dev`. Please sync the latest base and resolve the conflicts first; the resulting new head needs checks and re-review. This conflict gate is independent of CI and existing source findings. -- 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]
