Re: [PATCHv9 0/6] Expose submodule parallelism to the user

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> * This seems to clash with 00/20] refs backend.
>>>>>> Applied this on top of a merge between the current 'master' and
>>>>>> 'sb/submodule-parallel-update' topic to untangle the dependency;
>>>>>> otherwise there is no way for this topic to make progress X-<.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything I can do to help with easing the clash?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps try to rebase the series on top of such a merge (with this
>>>> updated series) yourself and propose it as a basis for the next
>>>> reroll for David?  In short, working together with topic(s) that
>>>> touch the same area?
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll see if I can find a better commit to base this series on.
>>
>> That is not what I meant.  I meant rebasing the refs-backend series
>> on top of a merge between this one and 'master', just like the way I
>> queued the refs-backend series on top of a merge between the
>> previous round of this series and 'master'.
>>
>> These two topics want to update the same piece of code, so another
>> possibility is to rebase this series on top of a merge between
>> refs-backend and 'master', but the current iteration of refs-backend
>> already depends on the previous round of this topic.  Rebasing this
>> on top of refs-backend would involve first adjusting parts of
>> refs-backend that touched the same code as the previous round of
>> submodule-parallel-update touched so that refs-backend would work
>> directly on top of 'master', and then including the necessary change
>> to the refs-backend code while rebuilding submodule-parallel-update
>> on top of the result.  So I do not think you would go in that
>> direction.
>
> Having said that, at least for this round, I do not think there is
> nothing to do at this point on your end; I just created a merge
> between master and your updated sb/submodule-parallel-update and
> then rebased the LMDB series on top of it.  It at least applies
> cleanly and I expect it would test OK as well (the test is still
> running).