Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@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). On your plate is to adjust the submodule-init topic so that it knows that the .update field no longer is a string (but is now an enum). I did try doing that myself to see the extent of necessary changes but did not finish it myself, because I suspect that sb/submodule-parallel-update may need further updates. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
