I found a related issue https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/issues/762 and attached there the pic I left off the previous post.
cheers -ben On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 23:06, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > First, kudos to Iceberg team for detecting the mistake I made messing > around at the command line under the feet of an Iceberg managed repo. > I'm interested in some general discussion of a few ideas before logging > any issues. > > I had an Iceberg managed repo branch "ready-multiple-commands" > as shown at [A] in the attached pic. > (note that this is "exercism/pharo" not "pharo-project/pharo") > > I wanted to compare "git log --graph" between a few branches > so I jumped into a command prompt and did so. Along the way I changed > branch to "master" from the command line [B]. > Then friends arrived and it was six hours until I got back to it > and was presented with "Detached Working Copy" [C], > and I'd forgotten what I'd done. > > Repair repository [D] didn't make this immediately obvious > although given the two commits after a while I managed to work it out > and simply `git checkout ready-multiple-commands` at the command line > fixed things, returning the display to [A]. > > So the discussion points I'm interested in are: > > a. An extra column "Image Branch" with the existing column > renamed "Disk Branch" would have made my mistake immediately obvious. > > b. Such under the covers command line operation may be a corner case(??), > so if not an extra column, a red Status message "Image Branch > ready-multiple-commands" or similar would have helped. > > c. In the first paragraph of [D] it was not apparent what "working copy" > and "repository commit" referred to (although after a while I worked it out > from the given commit hashes -- the former was in-Image and the latter > on-disk. But the files on disk are a "working copy" in all other git > documentation and it invites confusion not to refer to it like that. It > seems to me we deal with two working copies: an "image working copy" and a > "disk working copy". That terminology would have eased discovery of my > mistake. > > d. Instead of the commit hashes [D], is it feasible to match those to > branches/tags and display those. That would have made my mistake more > obvious. > > d. In [D], its not clear the difference between: > "Discard local changes" > "Discard image changes" > > cheers -ben >
