Q: 1
While maintaining the gist history, which of the following is the most efficient way to create a public
gist based on another user's gist?
Options
Discussion
Option A same thing pops up in every MS exam pool, always forking for history.
Honestly, Microsoft wording is always so roundabout in these. Option A, fork the gist.
Option D looks like a trap since GitHub doesn't support adding collaborators to individual gists, so that's out. I'd still pick A, but honestly if "maintain history" wasn't specified, B might confuse some folks. Not 100% certain though.
Its A
Definitely seen this before, and A is the way to go. Forking keeps the commit history connected, which is what they want here. Pretty sure B misses the point since it won't preserve any of that.
Forking keeps the full gist history and links your new gist back to the original, so A is the better fit here. B works for a one-off copy but you lose any tracking or attribution. Pretty sure Microsoft wants A based on how GitHub actually handles public gists. Anyone see an edge case for B?
Not sure about picking B here-doesn't copying content just give you a new gist with no link to the original? Looks like that's a common trap, since only A keeps the history as required.
A
B . If you just want a public gist and are ok to copy stuff over, B seems easier. Not sure why A would be better unless the history part really matters, maybe I'm missing something?
A tbh
Be respectful. No spam.