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

> 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.