Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> FWIW, I am not convinced yet why we would even want "git continue"
>> in the first place, so I won't be the one who would be suggesting a
>> migration path.
> Okay, I'm confused now.  You were the one who suggested a unified "git
> continue" in the first place, if my memory serves me right.  Why are
> you doubting it now?

AFAIR, the only thing I said about "continue" was that in a more
rational future where many "git frotz" commands that can stop and
ask the user to help exist, after the user helps the command by
creating the desired outcome in the index, the way the user signals
that she is done helping would be "git frotz --continue", and the
"After helping 'git merge', conclude it with 'git commit'" would be
an odd-man-out, and adding 'git merge --continue' may not be a bad
idea to make things more consistent.  Originally the way to help
"am" (with or without "-3") was to say "am --resolved", but that has
long been fixed to also take "am --continue".

So if you are adding "git merge --continue", that would be fine by
me, but I never said "git continue" subcommand would make any sense
at all.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to