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 7CDA0203EA for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752534AbcLJJA6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:00:58 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:54582 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751670AbcLJJA6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:00:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 1772 invoked by uid 109); 10 Dec 2016 09:00:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:00:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 25196 invoked by uid 111); 10 Dec 2016 09:01:36 -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 04:01:36 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:00:55 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:00:55 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Chris Packham Cc: Junio C Hamano , GIT Subject: Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command Message-ID: <20161210090054.w6qhmszcjkatjhm5@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 Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:49:13PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah I did think that --continue wasn't quite the right word. git > merge --conclude would probably be the most accurate. I'd be against giving it a subtly-different name. It's just going to frustrate people who cannot remember when to use "--conclude" and when it is "--continue". The strength of the proposal, IMHO, is that it abstracts the idea of "go on to the next thing or finish" across many commands. -Peff