Re: [PATCH 00/10] reftable: fix reload with active iterators

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > I can certainly do that. I know that there are conflicts both with the
> > patch series dropping the generic tables and with the patch series that
> > move the reftable unit tests into our own codebase. I did address the
> > former by basing it on top of that series, but didn't yet address the
> > latter.
> >
> > I'm okay with waiting a bit until most of the conflicting topics land. I
> > guess most of them should be close to landing anyway. Alternatively, I
> > can also pull all of them in as dependencies.
> 
> As long as the resolution you see in 'seen' looks acceptable, I'd
> rather prefer you do nothing, than a rebase that _reduces_ the
> number of conflicts (but does not completely eliminate them), when I
> already have a working resolution recorded in my rerere database.
> 
> Of course, updates to polish the substance of the topic are very
> much appreciated, and I'll redo the resolution in such a case if
> needed.  That's one of the things the maintainers do.