(beej.us)

1062 points mixto | 2 comments | 05 Feb 25 00:07 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

beej71 ◴[05 Feb 25 02:03 UTC] No.42942594[source]▶

Hey all--if you find things wrong, post 'em. I'll clean 'em up. :)

Love, Beej

replies(30): >>42942620 #>>42942694 #>>42942736 #>>42943486 #>>42943604 #>>42944525 #>>42945585 #>>42945722 #>>42946123 #>>42946210 #>>42946648 #>>42946913 #>>42947174 #>>42947352 #>>42947971 #>>42948270 #>>42948388 #>>42948408 #>>42949187 #>>42949195 #>>42949987 #>>42950982 #>>42952060 #>>42953388 #>>42953692 #>>42955126 #>>42959191 #>>42961534 #>>42974297 #>>42978137 #

1. chr86 ◴[07 Feb 25 16:12 UTC] No.42974297[source]▶

>>42942594 #

Hey great work beej! I've read pro git and your guide is very good.

So in figure 5.4 you say we merge 2 commits into a new one and somehow both branches point to new commit. This will definitely confuse people new to git.

I'd say it's better to write we merge anotherBranch into someBranch and leave the former where it is. Same for the next merge.

Just a suggestion

replies(1): >>42993520 #

2. beej71 ◴[09 Feb 25 20:21 UTC] No.42993520[source]▶

>>42974297 (TP) #

Yeah, I was speaking a little fast and loose here since this was just the intro part. I was worried that it would actually be more confusing to say that we merged them and they pointed to different places... which is of course what actually happens.

Let me see if I can do that and save the clarity.

↑

Beej's Guide to Git