On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > >>> 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. >
Yeah I did think that --continue wasn't quite the right word. git merge --conclude would probably be the most accurate.
