Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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.