On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am not sure if forbidding "-v --continue" adds any value; If I remember correctly, it was just the simplest possible way to not have to handle cases like "-i/-p/-m --continue" specially. > would it be > too much effort to allow "--continue -v" instead to achieve the same > degree of consistency between the two? I think it would be doable. Maybe something like: * Check that only the allowable options (-v/-q, -s, -X, --[no-]rerere-autoupdate) are passed together with --continue or --skip. For simplicity, maybe we can just accept the same set of flags with --abort as well, even though only -v/-q would make any sense. * When reading the saved state, first check for each of the options if it is already set. If it is, write it to disk instead, to make sure it is remembered across future interruptions. Otherwise, just read it as usual. I think that should be all that's needed. I'll have a look at it when I get some time. /Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html