10000 Chapter 3 polish by ben · Pull Request #43 · progit/progit2 · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Chapter 3 polish #43

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jun 10, 2014
Merged

Chapter 3 polish #43

merged 16 commits into from
Jun 10, 2014

Conversation

ben
Copy link
Member
@ben ben commented Jun 4, 2014

Various edits, and re-exported graphics at 300dpi. Discovered some that were missing, and notated them in #42.

@ben ben added this to the Chapter 3 - Git Branching milestone Jun 4, 2014
@ben
Copy link
Member Author
ben commented Jun 6, 2014

Ready to merge, if'n you like it.

@schacon
Copy link
Member
schacon commented Jun 9, 2014

Mostly small changes, though I did move 'Undoing Merges' to Ch7 as I felt it was a little advanced at this point in the narrative.

For now, let's assume you’ve committed all your changes, so you can switch back to your master branch:
However, before you do that, note that if your working directory or staging area has uncommitted changes that conflict with the branch you're checking out, Git won't let you switch branches.
It's best to have a clean working state when you switch branches.
There are ways to get around this (namely, stashing and commit amending) that we'll cover <<_git_stashing, later>>.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a weak preference, but I'm wondering if this is the right way to go. It'll show up as

that we'll cover later.

…in HTML and a digital PDF, but all that linky information will be lost in print. I kind of like using that we'll cover later on, in <<_git_stashing>>., because it'll show up as:

that we'll cover later on, in Section 3.2, Stashing.

Like I said, it's a weak preference. If you have a strong opinion either way, I'm cool with it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I like your way better, I'll change it.

@ben
Copy link
Member Author
ben commented Jun 10, 2014

Just the one question about naming cross-references; otherwise this looks really good.

schacon added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2014
@schacon schacon merged commit c3e2621 into master Jun 10, 2014
@schacon schacon deleted the chapter-3-polish branch June 10, 2014 21:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
0