Re: [PATCH v2] pull: introduce --merge option

> I am afraid that you are misinterpreting what I said, comparing
> apples and oranges, and drawing a wrong conclusion >
> When I said "-m" would not fly well as a short-hand for "--merge" in
> the context of "pull", I didn't mean "nobody would think 'm' stands
> for 'merge'", and I didn't mean "more people would think 'm' stands
> for 'message' more than 'merge'".  The reason why I find it
> problematic is because it can be ambiguous >
> When we step back and think about your "switch -m" and its synonym
> "checkout -m", we realize that these commands fundamentally never
> take "--message", as there is no place to record such a message
> (they do not create a commit after all), after they switch to a
> different branch while carrying the local modification forward by
> performing a (possibly conflicting) content-level merge.  That is
> why we can give their "merge" operation a short-and-sweet "m"
> without confusing our users.  So contrasting "switch" having "-m"
> that means "merge" with "pull" that can conceivably take both
> "merge" and "message" is not a comparison you can draw useful
> conclusion from.