Free Microsoft GH-900 Actual Exam Questions

Maybe D makes the most sense here because outside collaborators aren’t counted in the org’s license tally, which is a pretty clear-cut difference. A is true in a way, but it feels more like a detail about permissions rather than a fundamental difference. Also, C isn’t fully accurate since admins can sometimes be assigned at the repo level, even if they’re not full org members. So D feels like the most practical distinction for how these roles impact the organization.

C imo, outside collaborators can’t be admins because they don’t have full org membership. This limits their control to specific repos only. A is also true but feels more like a general rule, while C highlights a clear role restriction that’s easier to spot. Also, D might be true but depends on the org’s billing setup, so it’s less absolute than C.

D Setting up the profile is definitely a must before getting funds, because that’s how GitHub tracks and manages sponsorships. Options A and C are just details that come later.

Maybe D makes the most sense since without the profile set up, GitHub wouldn't have the info to send funds. PayPal (A) is just the payment method after that step is done.

C imo. It covers the entire org with org:Avocado, filters by label:guacamole, and searches for "404 error" in the text. Then selecting "Issues" ensures you only see issue results. A has is:issue which might be redundant if you filter by issues afterward, and B only looks at one repo’s issues, not the whole org. D is about settings, not searching. So C feels like a cleaner way to combine all criteria across the org.

Maybe C works best because it specifically includes the label and text in the query and then filters to issues, which should cover all repos in the Avocado org. A includes “is:issue” but I’m not totally sure if that’s needed or if it might narrow things unnecessarily. B looks too limited since it only checks one repo, and D is about settings, not searching. So C seems like the most straightforward way to get all issues with that label and text across the whole organization.

Maybe A, since commits exist on branches and PRs link to those branches.

It’s A for sure. Commits are tied to branches, and the pull request is basically a proposal to merge those branch commits. B and C don’t work because you can add commits both before and after opening a PR. D is off since commits aren’t made “on” a PR; the PR just references the branch’s commits. So A captures the relationship best without mixing up the order or scope of commits and PRs.

I’m going with C here. Insights usually covers the bigger picture of repo analytics, including pre-built reports and visualizations. Charts might be more specific or just one part of Insights. Settings and Issues are definitely off since they don’t deal with visual data directly. The question says “pre-built visualizations from repository data” which fits the broader Insights section better than just Charts.

Option D makes more sense since Charts implies direct access to visual data, not just summaries.

D for sure, and B makes sense since commenters are often collaborators.

Probably D for sure since assigning usually requires write access. For the other one, I’d say C because having a personal GitHub account is a basic requirement to be assigned, even if they don’t have write permissions yet. A and B seem less solid since just commenting or having an enterprise account doesn’t guarantee assignment rights.

Makes sense to rule out A and C since Innersource is about internal collaboration, not just adopting or removing open source. D is definitely out because it talks about public access. B fits best as it captures the core of Innersource: sharing and collaborating on code inside the company. So, I’d go with B.

Not D, because making repositories fully public goes beyond the internal focus of Innersource. B fits better since it’s about internal collaboration without exposing code outside the company.

C. The other options either don’t have the right folder hierarchy or use incorrect casing, which GitHub is pretty strict about. The .github folder is definitely where you put config files, and the ISSUE_TEMPLATE subfolder is specifically for issue forms and templates. A and B don’t follow the usual naming conventions, and D has a capital G which isn’t standard. This one’s pretty straightforward if you know how GitHub structures its repo configs.

Probably C. The .github folder is where GitHub keeps most config stuff, and ISSUE_TEMPLATE is the usual place for issue form files. The others just don’t match the typical setup.

B imo makes sense since businesses need org-wide control, and E is definitely business-only for enterprise accounts. C also fits cause blocking public code suggestions is key for companies worried about IP.

B, E, and D seem right since VPN support is business-focused too.

It’s A, C, and D—GitHub’s mobile app can do push 2FA, so it qualifies.

A/D/C? The authenticator app (A) and security keys (D) are definitely legit 2FA methods for GitHub. As for C, if the GitHub mobile app can send push notifications for approval, that counts as a separate second factor from just codes generated by authenticator apps. B is just security questions, which aren’t real 2FA, and E is more about identity management than a direct 2FA method GitHub offers itself. So I’d go with A, C, and D here.

Maybe D isn’t a thing since you can’t really ask someone to add you to their gist like a repo. Cloning (C) just makes a local copy, so it doesn’t create a new public gist with history. Copying content manually (B) loses the history completely, so that’s out. Forking (A) seems like the only way to keep the history and have your own public gist. So yeah, A’s the best fit here for efficiency and preserving history.

A imo, forking keeps history linked and is way easier than requesting access.

It’s B, C, and D for me too. Security and Delete seem more like specific permissions, and Write isn’t usually listed as a standalone role in most repo setups.

B, C, D—all fit the standard role set, others sound like permissions.

Gist is definitely linked to GitHub and specifically made for sharing code snippets quickly, so it’s not just any repo but a special one. D sounds off since it’s about sites, so B fits best here. B

Makes sense that a gist is a GitHub feature for sharing code snippets. It’s definitely not an app or a full site, so B seems best here.

D, deploying from feature branches stops broken code hitting main early.

C/D? I’m guessing it’s not C since we definitely want testing before merging. D fits because deploying from feature branch means real checks happen before merging, preventing problems later.

It’s definitely not A or D because those rely too much on a central place or manual steps. B talks about cloud and collaboration but doesn’t say anything about having the full history locally. The key with distributed systems is that each developer gets the complete repo on their machine, which matches C perfectly. Without that local full copy, it’s not really distributed. So the distinct feature here is having all project history and metadata locally, which only C nails.

This one feels like C for sure. Distributed version control means every developer has the full repo locally, not just a snapshot or relying on a server like A or B imply. D is obviously old-school manual stuff, so that’s out. C captures the key idea of local copies with complete history and metadata, which is what sets distributed systems apart from centralized ones.