Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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). Yup. I know you know me well enough to know that I didn't mean to say "oh this one needs to be called differently" ;-) I just felt that "--continue" in that context did not sit well.