Jeff King 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 m
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:49:13PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>
>> > 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"
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:49:13PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> > 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
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:16:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 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 a
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King 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 th
Jeff King 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 st
On December 9, 2016 1:11:27 AM PST, Jeff King wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>
>> I hit this at $dayjob recently.
>>
>> A developer had got themselves into a confused state when needing to
>> resolve a merge conflict.
>>
>> They knew about git rebase --con
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> I hit this at $dayjob recently.
>
> A developer had got themselves into a confused state when needing to
> resolve a merge conflict.
>
> They knew about git rebase --continue (and git am and git cherry-pick)
> but they were unsure
I hit this at $dayjob recently.
A developer had got themselves into a confused state when needing to
resolve a merge conflict.
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 c
9 matches
Mail list logo
