SEZ9 commented on PR #10680: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/10680#issuecomment-5409362403
Thanks @DanielLeens — that plan makes sense, and to answer you directly: yes, I agree the branch owner pushing their own rebase is the safer path. Redoing it blind through edit-from-maintainers access without re-verifying that it's still open is exactly the kind of risk we don't need here, especially since the local label-state changes are best understood by the person who wrote them. So nothing on my side is blocked or done yet — the sequencing stays as your three-item split: 1. Branch owner rebases the head onto the latest `dev` and pushes, which clears the merge conflict. If edit-from-maintainers turns out to still be open after that, your offer to help directly is a good fallback. 2. Once the synced head is up, I'll retrigger the `Build` run (currently the same `ACTION_REQUIRED` run at https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/88075956675) so we get a fresh CI result. 3. After CI comes back green and you've done your final look at the label-state logic, a write-capable maintainer completes the formal approval. Concrete remaining asks: we need the rebase pushed to the head branch, and then a ping here once it's up so I can retrigger CI and you can do the final pass in parallel. Nothing else is outstanding from my side. <!-- streview-comment:540 --> -- 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]
