From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:53:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] [doc] Add new page on merge conflicts
Message-ID: <CALnO6CAG-z8B2zXj+QEvZNb-Ufiq=qgyPR5VvQShyH1H_+bgNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <623cdf71-8076-4967-aff1-3ebeb57d1e3a@app.fastmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 2:50 PM Julia Evans <julia@jvns.ca> wrote:
> >
> > For now I would say the subtleties in that conversation really make me
> > lean towards the following:
> >
> > - "git <thing> --continue" is, for most users in most cases, the right
> > thing to do. It's what "git status" recommends and will practically
> > never do anything surprising (?).
>
> I was actually surprised to discover that `git status` does not recommend
> `git merge --continue`: it recommends `git commit`.

Wow, yeah! I'm surprised, too. (See
wt-status.c:show_merge_in_progress(), and compare with other related
functions.)

> Maybe we should change that though?

I think so, at least.

> I agree it makes sense to be consistent with what `git status` recommends.

For sure.

> > - However, it may not always be exactly what you *want*---and you'll
> > usually know when you want to go "outside" the normal sequencer and
> > commit directly (because you'll have understood some nuanced details
> > about what can happen).
> >
> > For merge it may be the case that they're the same, I suppose (I'm
> > genuinely not sure), but I would prefer to simplify folks' paths by
> > recommending one of the few uniform interfaces we have :)
>
> The only other thing that gives me pause about recommending folks
> `git merge --continue` too strongly is that as we know Git users are slow to
> change their habits, and we don't want to confuse anyone. If someone is
> currently using `git commit` I want to know that they can keep doing
> it the same way with no worries.
>
> Maybe if we change `git status` to recommend `git merge --continue`,
> and we think there are no real advantages to using `git commit` instead
> of `git merge --continue`, then we could say something like this:
>
>   NOTE: `git commit` is an older alternative to `git merge --continue`.
>   You can use either one after resolving a `git merge`.

That sounds like a reasonable plan. Another plan that occurs to me is
to go forward with the "commit" version (for merges; other commands
should use the sequencer versions that status recommends) and update
this doc later if we do change status to recommend "merge --continue".

I'd love to hear from others on either changing status output to
recommend "merge --continue" or admitting that, for merges, "commit"
is the same thing.

-- 
D. Ben Knoble