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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2024, 15:15 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmsl4vb9w.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Zsc03CSJ3Ece5L6s@tanuki>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> 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.

Thanks.