Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Documentation/git-merge: explain --continue

From: hIpPy <hippy2981@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2017, 15:24 UTC
Message-ID: <CAM_JFCzq+DPUFbC60kjNjHz3OZLt-X3bLXJdSFpBnATtZ6otdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSq0t=Jkaq-dgt_T4K9an4Peat0jArRQgE6JgsWwu53FPw@mail.gmail.com>

I think 'git merge --continue' should be advertised more that 'git commit' as typically one is familiar with 'git rebase --continue' and 'git cherry-pick --continue'. I for a long time did not know I could also use 'git commit' to continue a merge but that's just me. Now, 'git commit' is easier to remember if it works in all cases (merge, rebase, cherry-pick).

RM

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 55 quoted lines

> On 22 August 2017 at 11:26, Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> wrote:
>> Martin Ågren venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2017 18:43:
>>> On 21 August 2017 at 14:53, Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> wrote:
>>>> Currently, 'git merge --continue' is mentioned but not explained.
>>>>
>>>> Explain it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/git-merge.txt | 5 ++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
>>>> index 6b308ab6d0..615e6bacde 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
>>>> @@ -288,7 +288,10 @@ After seeing a conflict, you can do two things:
>>>>
>>>>   * Resolve the conflicts.  Git will mark the conflicts in
>>>>     the working tree.  Edit the files into shape and
>>>> -   'git add' them to the index.  Use 'git commit' to seal the deal.
>>>> +   'git add' them to the index.  Use 'git commit' or
>>>> +   'git merge --continue' to seal the deal. The latter command
>>>> +   checks whether there is a (interrupted) merge in progress
>>>> +   before calling 'git commit'.
>>>>
>>>>  You can work through the conflict with a number of tools:
>>>
>>> There are actually two things going on here. First, this mentions git
>>> merge --continue. Second, it explains what that command does. But the
>>> latter is done earlier (not exactly like here, but still).
>>
>> I didn't see that explained in the man page at all - on the contrary, I
>> only saw a forward reference (see section...), but then only an
>> explanation of what "resolving" means (including the "git commit"-step).
>> It is unclear to me from the man page which steps of "resolving" the
>> command "git merge --continue" does - you could think it does "git
>> commit -a", for example.
>
> That's very true, and your change helps immensely. I thought that once
> git merge --continue was mentioned, e.g.,
>
>         Use 'git commit' or 'git merge --continue' to seal the deal.
>
> or
>
>         Use 'git commit' to conclude (you can also say 'git merge
>         --continue').
>
> then things are in some sense "complete". But you might be right that
> further stressing that the latter is basically an alias helps avoid some
> confusion. "Oh, great, so now I have two commands to choose from -- which
> one should I be using?" :-)
>
> Martin