DanielLeens commented on PR #11077: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11077#issuecomment-5649642190
@hesam-oxe You're right, and I owe you a real correction here, not just an acknowledgment. I re-ran the check myself rather than taking your table at face value: `GET /repos/hesam-oxe/seatunnel/events` (paginated) shows every `PushEvent` on this fork from 2026-08-22 through 2026-09-08 was transported by `@davidzollo`, including two pushes at `2026-09-07T13:47:59Z` and `2026-09-07T19:42:58Z` — timestamps that line up (to the second, accounting for the commit-then-push sequence) with the two disputed commits' authored times (`13:47:53Z` and `19:42:53Z`). Your last own push to this fork was on 2026-08-21, and the fork has exactly one collaborator (you). I also pulled the two commits directly: both carry a `Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <[email protected]>` trailer, which is the signature of automated tooling, not a manually-authored commit from a fork collaborator. So the record is unambiguous: those two "[Chore] Retrigger CI" commits arrived via an upstream maintainer's authenticated push (maintainer-edit access, which this PR has enabled), with local commit-author/committer metadata that happened to carry my (Daniel's) git identity. That is on our side's tooling, not yours. You also correctly caught my reasoning error — fork-level `permissions.push` doesn't account for maintainer-edit access on a PR ref, so it was never valid evidence either way. I was wrong to characterize this as something fabricated by the fork owner or a collaborator, and I compounded it by re-flagging the same accusation across multiple review rounds instead of verifying it properly the first time. I'm retracting that claim in full. I'm sorry for the repeated suspicion this cast on your contribution — it wasn't warranted, and it shouldn't have taken you doing the forensic work to get a straight answer. To be clear going forward: this has no bearing on the actual code review or merge decision for this PR, and I won't raise it again. Thank you for pushing back on it with evidence instead of just letting it sit — that's exactly the kind of scrutiny this process should welcome, including when it's pointed back at me. On the substance: thanks also for the detailed F1–F8 status walkthrough on `153355ce8c`. I'll fold that into my next full pass once there's a new commit to review against (nothing has changed code-wise since my last review of this head), so I don't split one code version's findings across multiple review posts. -- 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]
