Me techie

I've started a branch, the name is feat A and it was “born” from the main branch. I've started working on my feat A. Meanwhile Jarvas started feat B, also “born” from the main branch. Jarvas finished his changes and created a pull request that was approved. His branch was “closed”: reintegrated on the main branch and the old branch reference deleted.   Option One - Rebase feat A to the top of Main Branch Re-apply commits from feat A on the top of Main Branch. This process is done, commit to commit. Following the order of commits in feat A, each commit is applied to the top of the Main Branch. If it detects any conflict that cannot be resolved automatically, the process is paused and it's necessary the user intervention to solve it and continue the Rebase with the next commit. Fig. 2  Rebase feature branch Option two - Merge from the main branch to feat A Creates new commit on feat A with the new commit refs from Main Branch. This process is done in one step. If Git detects

In matters of web pages development or construction, there are several approaches: from scratch and implementing everything to modular building with almost drag and drop. The reasons for choosing the strategy for the implementation, in my opinion can be seen as a two way factor: Available budget Complexity of the functionalities in the web page. There are a great number of tools that allow us to build web pages, from static to transactional, without really looking at the HTML generated underneath. On one hand, this is one good thing because it makes web development reachable to a more vast audience. But I would like to ask: are those tools generating complying HTML so assistive technologies can actually understand the structure of the page or event for search engine scraping? Try closing our eyes behind a door. If someone says “Open the door”, you will look for the locker and try to open. If I say “You have a movable obstacle in your front”, you must pull or push it so it can move away