Re: Why does "merge --continue" expect no arguments?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 21 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Or we could throw in another
>>
>>  * document more clearly that "merge --continue" is a mere synonym
>>    for, and hint that there is no reason to favor it over, "git
>>    commit".
>
> But it's not:
>
>     $ git add foo
>     $ git commit -v
>     hint: Waiting for your editor to close the file.[...]
>     ^C
>     $ git merge --continue
>     fatal: There is no merge in progress (MERGE_HEAD missing).
>
> FWIW I prefer and use it for that reason, i.e. it's useful for scripting
> to use these "stateful" commands when we're in some sort of rebase/merge
> "sequence" since it's an extra layer of sanity checking.

There is no additional safety afforded by that, though.  There is no
reason why one would even try to say "merge --continue" without
doing any merge to begin with.

The "merge --continue" not taking any pathspec is a bit of safety,
but even there, "commit" already has its own safety to reject
pathspec when it notices that it is concluding a conflicted "merge",
so "merge --continue" is not necessary for additional safety there,
either.