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=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 17487203EA for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752798AbcLJK6Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 05:58:24 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com ([209.85.161.176]:35283 "EHLO mail-yw0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751981AbcLJK6X (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 05:58:23 -0500 Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id i145so32871538ywg.2 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:58:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=86gt/gLroq7TZR2W/j5eSqUmCFu3LSAR5kEaHY2kNJo=; b=i00MpUGlOKfCLcT4i8rYuLuMEc6uNmqjizgyHfWbk/e1TR66sTMzpFTP2aMXfYNRlF u9eh/JdN6+xtYp6UJ16KoTepV/aWQYIDrv29VYrEHLY0MaUbeh2tR2UnLWbjz0rKk6Ae Gf49SeNDwHyd6+21tEfsvpFYwNhQXLH1xK52lHQ7gdKlrTAnRCKa3Yu7PpQZHrRpW3Zs 7hkgXhus1gp/24qjz3TRx8uqZpNH5NGY1UHb7/pxx2/7jJkieonbMoyD3NEuLxhC3PJ/ 5BcazXsqaEQ5as52uCBUujjwJMLvOHBmrGAQs7+zOWzztnhPRbMrWUoM1RcJK2lxc1xL oBoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=86gt/gLroq7TZR2W/j5eSqUmCFu3LSAR5kEaHY2kNJo=; b=VF01FJemCTQ1P1Ha4VmRYMbimbl6gih60MMgzirMQXGt18fzlrQE2VOc5wAW/U+nQc M7ZDeztL1SPy53Ab6RUCsHhfhtCWPDj3lqCzTel+hXykuLexLMziCtNjOMp4zw6yEkad fUkPGrAOVyGhdMvZKYqboMLmzKOYLFXkSETIKYG2DK8c8WnTjaKiA93qVQ3sb+UZIspj PV9X4MJd/piIph8iNZu61Y2kIS36S7hXFD29Sn+9z/mh090vy9YDiVPYz5EGY7BaygUi 9l9SkjspzReOMraJc8UYFuK+v97xH5A7UYxGrypHZbrER1A2x1+NWfPIWmu0cBYVcr2C uwKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01aUsIPAlzHzWSHx0gDZHxD8hpWjqx6Ah4MHzXoKECaxGnLulEscoTYReemtDQlP524KW4ffAJcsT25Kg== X-Received: by 10.129.163.69 with SMTP id a66mr85799095ywh.175.1481367502786; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:58:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.118.87 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:58:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161210090054.w6qhmszcjkatjhm5@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20161209091127.sxxczhfslrqsqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161210090054.w6qhmszcjkatjhm5@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Jacob Keller Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:58:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command To: Jeff King Cc: Chris Packham , Junio C Hamano , GIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jeff King wrote: > 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 Agreed. I think "continue" makes sense as the command had to "stop" the merge so you could give input, and then you tell git to "continue" which also happens to mean "finish the merge" and yes it may not be 100% accurate, but the point of adding "git merge --continue" is that it simplifies the mental model between rebase, cherry-pick, and merge, all of which stop and ask the user to resolve a conflict before "continue"ing and finalizing that resolution. Thanks, Jake