I think 'git merge --continue' should be advertised more that 'git commit' as typically one is familiar with 'git rebase --continue' and 'git cherry-pick --continue'. I for a long time did not know I could also use 'git commit' to continue a merge but that's just me. Now, 'git commit' is easier to remember if it works in all cases (merge, rebase, cherry-pick). RM On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22 August 2017 at 11:26, Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Martin Ågren venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2017 18:43: >>> On 21 August 2017 at 14:53, Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Currently, 'git merge --continue' is mentioned but not explained. >>>> >>>> Explain it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/git-merge.txt | 5 ++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt >>>> index 6b308ab6d0..615e6bacde 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt >>>> @@ -288,7 +288,10 @@ After seeing a conflict, you can do two things: >>>> >>>> * Resolve the conflicts. Git will mark the conflicts in >>>> the working tree. Edit the files into shape and >>>> - 'git add' them to the index. Use 'git commit' to seal the deal. >>>> + 'git add' them to the index. Use 'git commit' or >>>> + 'git merge --continue' to seal the deal. The latter command >>>> + checks whether there is a (interrupted) merge in progress >>>> + before calling 'git commit'. >>>> >>>> You can work through the conflict with a number of tools: >>> >>> There are actually two things going on here. First, this mentions git >>> merge --continue. Second, it explains what that command does. But the >>> latter is done earlier (not exactly like here, but still). >> >> I didn't see that explained in the man page at all - on the contrary, I >> only saw a forward reference (see section...), but then only an >> explanation of what "resolving" means (including the "git commit"-step). >> It is unclear to me from the man page which steps of "resolving" the >> command "git merge --continue" does - you could think it does "git >> commit -a", for example. > > That's very true, and your change helps immensely. I thought that once > git merge --continue was mentioned, e.g., > > Use 'git commit' or 'git merge --continue' to seal the deal. > > or > > Use 'git commit' to conclude (you can also say 'git merge > --continue'). > > then things are in some sense "complete". But you might be right that > further stressing that the latter is basically an alias helps avoid some > confusion. "Oh, great, so now I have two commands to choose from -- which > one should I be using?" :-) > > Martin
