From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2026 02:29:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] [doc] Add new page on merge conflicts
Message-ID: <CALnO6CC+h1y=Fu438nm4cd0K-dfPVYq9MqX_+k8fxBU60ot8KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <91396552-f86b-47d7-9805-8f6056c2ed66@app.fastmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 1:40 PM Julia Evans <julia@jvns.ca> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> >>  * I wrote that git commit does the same thing as git merge --continue
> >>    during a git merge , but I'm not sure if that's always true.
> >
> > See also discussion in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEQSx4m3BcT28CpVGCtsH75+x3gmv4OJz_ecLVLx+kBWg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
>
> Wow, that's a very interesting read. I'm more informed than I was before
> I read it but also at the same time more confused :). It makes me think
> that "git commit does the same thing as git merge --continue" is maybe
> not true but also I don't know what the difference might be.
>
> I've put an item on my TODO list to remove
> `git commit does the same thing as git merge --continue`" and to try to
> replace it with a more vague sentence that I guess says you can use
> either command without being so specific on whether they are exactly
> the same.

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 (?).
- 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 :)