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 6657C203EA for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:59:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751986AbcLJI75 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:59:57 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:54577 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751639AbcLJI75 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:59:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 1647 invoked by uid 109); 10 Dec 2016 08:59:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:59:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 25177 invoked by uid 111); 10 Dec 2016 09:00:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:00:21 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:59:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:59:39 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Chris Packham , GIT Subject: Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command Message-ID: <20161210085938.rfbkuwpvyhnhuzhn@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20161209091127.sxxczhfslrqsqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net> 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 11:16:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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. No, I think your reasoning makes sense. But I also think we've already choosen to have "--continue" mean "conclude the current, and continue if there is anything left" in other contexts (e.g., a single-item cherry-pick). It's more vague, but I think it keeps the user's mental model simpler if we provide a standard set of options for multi-step commands (e.g., always "--continue/--abort/--skip", though there are some like merge that omit "--skip" if it does not make sense). -Peff