On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:30:58AM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > @@ -596,47 +596,47 @@ int notes_merge(struct notes_merge_options *o, > /* Find merge bases */ > bases = get_merge_bases(local, remote); > if (!bases) { > - base_sha1 = null_sha1; > - base_tree_sha1 = EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN; > + base_oid = &null_oid; > + base_tree_oid = &empty_tree_oid; > if (o->verbosity >= 4) > printf("No merge base found; doing history-less merge\n"); > } else if (!bases->next) { > - base_sha1 = bases->item->object.oid.hash; > - base_tree_sha1 = bases->item->tree->object.oid.hash; > + base_oid = &bases->item->object.oid; > + base_tree_oid = &bases->item->tree->object.oid; > if (o->verbosity >= 4) > printf("One merge base found (%.7s)\n", > - sha1_to_hex(base_sha1)); > + oid_to_hex(base_oid)); I noticed you fixed up the indentation. Thanks. > diff --git a/notes-merge.h b/notes-merge.h > index 0d890563b..eaa8e3b86 100644 > --- a/notes-merge.h > +++ b/notes-merge.h > @@ -33,15 +33,15 @@ void init_notes_merge_options(struct notes_merge_options *o); > * > * 1. The merge trivially results in an existing commit (e.g. fast-forward or > * already-up-to-date). 'local_tree' is untouched, the SHA1 of the result > - * is written into 'result_sha1' and 0 is returned. > + * is written into 'result_oid' and 0 is returned. > * 2. The merge successfully completes, producing a merge commit. local_tree > * contains the updated notes tree, the SHA1 of the resulting commit is > - * written into 'result_sha1', and 1 is returned. > + * written into 'result_oid', and 1 is returned. > * 3. The merge results in conflicts. This is similar to #2 in that the > * partial merge result (i.e. merge result minus the unmerged entries) > * are stored in 'local_tree', and the SHA1 or the resulting commit > * (to be amended when the conflicts have been resolved) is written into > - * 'result_sha1'. The unmerged entries are written into the > + * 'result_oid'. The unmerged entries are written into the > * .git/NOTES_MERGE_WORKTREE directory with conflict markers. > * -1 is returned. > * Did you want to change the comment to say "object ID" or "OID" instead of "SHA1" like you did in an earlier patch? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204