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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 9, 2016, 19:16 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqshpwrjyz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161209091127.sxxczhfslrqsqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

>> They knew about git rebase --continue (and git am and git cherry-pick)
>> but they were unsure how to "continue" a merge (it didn't help that
>> the advice saying to use 'git commit' was scrolling off the top of the
>> terminal). I know that using 'git commit' has been the standard way to
>> complete a merge but given other commands have a --continue should
>> merge have it as well?
>
> It seems like that would be in line with 35d2fffdb (Provide 'git merge
> --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset --merge', 2010-11-09), whose stated
> goal was providing consistency with other multi-command operations.
>
> I assume it would _just_ run a vanilla "git commit", and not try to do
> any trickery with updating the index (which could be disastrous).

If we were to have "merge --continue", I agree that it would be the logical implementation.

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.