Closed SumonGFC closed 3 days ago
Do you think it's worth adding the link as an additional resource maybe?
I agree with the other proposed change and happy to open this up since you don't want to work on it
@CouchofTomato Thank you. Please open it up for someone to handle (I think it would be a good first issue for someone to submit their first PR for).
If the HEAD^
is changed to HEAD~
, then I actually don't think it is worth adding the SO post as an additional resource since the lesson would then make no mention of HEAD^
.
If the HEAD^
is left unchanged, then I do think the SO post as an additional resource would be necessary.
I am in favour of the former solution (changing ^
to ~
) as I think it is the most simple.
Hey I'd love to work this issue up. Also, i agree with the simpler approach of just changing HEAD^
to HEAD~
& the additional resource turns out to to be redundant if there's no mention, and it looks like something that could be easily found by searching around SO
@CouchofTomato please feel free to assign @mathdebate09 to this issue.
Checks
Describe your suggestion
In A Deeper Look at Git, we can see that in this section we are instructed to use
HEAD^
to refer symbolically to the parent ofHEAD
, but everywhere else in the lesson (like here and here) we useHEAD~(n)
to refer to parent(s) ofHEAD
. Although functionally the same within the context of this lesson, the distinction between these selectors is not explained which can lead to some potential confusion. I think the simplest fix for this (if one is necessary) would be to replace theHEAD^
in the "Splitting up a commit" section with justHEAD~
and omit any mention of the caret selector. Otherwise, an additional resource like this SO post does a good job of explaining the distinction, if a little advanced.If this is a valid issue, then it might be good first issue for someone to handle the PR.
Path
Ruby / Rails, Node / JS
Lesson Url
https://www.theodinproject.com/lessons/ruby-a-deeper-look-at-git
(Optional) Discord Name
Chindiana Jones
(Optional) Additional Comments
No response