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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 10, 2016, 09:00 UTC
Message-ID: <20161210090054.w6qhmszcjkatjhm5@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFOYHZAsU_gNb=_K=iMFKFdt60SJ4Wm=Ag5=XMXuQgxNxCqWLA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:49:13PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > There is nothing to "continue" in a stopped merge where Git asked
> > for help from the user, and because of that, I view the final "git
> > commit" as "concluding the merge", not "continuing".  "continue"
> > makes quite a lot of sense with rebase and cherry-pick A..B that
> > stopped; it concludes the current step and let it continue to
> > process the remainder.  So from that point of view, it somewhat
> > feels strange to call it "merge --continue", but it probably is just
> > me.
> 
> Yeah I did think that --continue wasn't quite the right word. git
> merge --conclude would probably be the most accurate.

I'd be against giving it a subtly-different name. It's just going to frustrate people who cannot remember when to use "--conclude" and when it is "--continue". The strength of the proposal, IMHO, is that it abstracts the idea of "go on to the next thing or finish" across many commands.

-Peff