Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 9, 2016, 09:11 UTC
Message-ID: <20161209091127.sxxczhfslrqsqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFOYHZDs5rBt5+4D_ViMYfV04foq3h_UrsSMA3FfyMzLh9QdwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> I hit this at $dayjob recently.
> 
> A developer had got themselves into a confused state when needing to
> resolve a merge conflict.
> 
> They knew about git rebase --continue (and git am and git cherry-pick)
> but they were unsure how to "continue" a merge (it didn't help that
> the advice saying to use 'git commit' was scrolling off the top of the
> terminal). I know that using 'git commit' has been the standard way to
> complete a merge but given other commands have a --continue should
> merge have it as well?

It seems like that would be in line with 35d2fffdb (Provide 'git merge --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset --merge', 2010-11-09), whose stated goal was providing consistency with other multi-command operations.

I assume it would _just_ run a vanilla "git commit", and not try to do any trickery with updating the index (which could be disastrous).

-Peff