Thanks for the input, all. Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > perhaps the doc update would be the quickest one that offers the most to learn from Sounds good! Now by "doc update" do you mean updating docs in the Documentation/ folder, or adding a warning to the CLI output of `git merge --continue`? Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > coming up with a sensible list of allowed options and arguments [to `git merge --continue`] would be quite hard. Chris Packham <judge.packham@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think it'd be a good idea to allow [--no-edit on `git merge --continue`] as long as it's the only other option allowed with --continue. Based on these two pieces of feedback, it sounds like adding _just_ the `--no-edit` option at this point to `git merge --continue` is worthwhile, and hopefully approachable for a newb. For now I'll put a pin in it though, and focus on the documentation task above. On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 2:46 AM Chris Packham <judge.packham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, 2:54 PM Daniel Vicarel, <shundra8820@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> There are several git commands that take a "--continue" >> option...`merge`, `rebase`, `cherry-pick`, etc. From looking through >> the source though, only `merge --continue` seems to expect no other >> arguments. Suppose that you have just resolved some merge conflicts, >> and then want to run `git merge --continue --no-edit` to accept the >> default merge commit message. Having to open/close the configured text >> editor still is mildly annoying. I'm interested in submitting a patch >> to "fix" this `merge` behavior, but I wanted to check if this was >> really the intended behavior first, and if so why. > > > I added the --continue option to merge and I can tell you there was no reason --no-edit was omitted, I just didn't think of it at the time. I think it'd be a good idea to allow it as long as it's the only other option allowed with --continue. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Dan Vicarel (he/him) -- Dan Vicarel
