From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4D71FF7F for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932988AbcLIJLc (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 04:11:32 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:54064 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932469AbcLIJLb (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 04:11:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 13381 invoked by uid 109); 9 Dec 2016 09:11:29 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:11:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 16665 invoked by uid 111); 9 Dec 2016 09:12:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:12:09 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:11:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 04:11:27 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Chris Packham Cc: GIT Subject: Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command Message-ID: <20161209091127.sxxczhfslrqsqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > I hit this at $dayjob recently. > > A developer had got themselves into a confused state when needing to > resolve a merge conflict. > > 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). -Peff