I just finished resolving some conflicts due to a pull from the remote repository of my project.
I know that once conflicts have been resolved you have, to my knowledge, 2 solutions :
git rebase --continuegit commit -m "foobar"I was just wondering if there are any differences between those 2 operations, in this context only, as I know they are fundamentally different in their basic form ?
EDIT #2:
If you initiated this situation with git pull, the expected resolution is to use git commit, because you are creating a new commit to represent the successful merge. If this situation was initiated with git pull --rebase, you would want to use git rebase --continue as mentioned in my original answer, as this will reuse the same commits without creating any new ones.
Original answer (in which I assumed this was initiated with git pull --rebase):
I can tell you that the recommended method is to use git rebase --continue. (See here: http://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase)
The git commit method may work, but it may change your commit history if you don't use the -C flag, which is what resolving a git merge will recommend. I suppose it is also worth mentioning that the -m flag will change the log message, whereas the git rebase --continue will reuse the old commit message without asking.
EDIT:
Further research confirms my suspicions that the git commit method is dangerous and may leave your repo in an undesirable state. See here:
http://www.tigraine.at/2011/08/10/dont-commit-when-you-rebase
and here: Forgot "git rebase --continue" and did "git commit". How to fix?
git pull or git pull --rebase? I assumed it was the latter, since you mentioned using the git rebase --continue command, but if you started with a merge, you definitely don't want to use any rebase commands!git pull, but anyway git rebase --continue also works, which is kind of weird. That's why I posted.