Re: Any interest in 'git merge --continue' as a command

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:16:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

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