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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature