[Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

Esteban A. Maringolo emaringolo at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 08:17:24 EDT 2018

On 15/06/2018 20:00, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
> Phew - I can confirm that (unsurprisingly I guess) - just committing in
> Iceberg (without ticking - push changes to origin/master) does then let
> you easily overlay the same checked out project (typically
> ./iceberg/ProjectName) in a tool like VSCode or IntelliJ where you can
> then also commit further changes to files that Iceberg is ignoring
> (essentially everything not in the src directory - typically candidates
> would be your Readme.md file and possibly a ./scripts or ./assets
> directory).

That could work as a *workaround* to a design decision that made the
image the "staging" of a git commit.

> In that other tool you can then issue a push which will then atomically
> push all commits to a pipeline. It can be a little more tricky to
> understand what the pipeline is building - in Gitlab it will show you
> the comment of the most recent commit in the pipeline, however if you
> then click on the branch the pipeline is running on, you will get a list
> of commits and can see all the commits that are between the running
> pipeline and the previously run pipeline.
> For many of you - this might be pleadingly obvious - but when you have a
> different workflow mindset in your head, it might be trickier to spot
> this subtlety.

But it's not what I'd expect when using git, in particular if you use
commit commands and/or CI, because if you add a comment like like "Fixes
Issue #2345" in your Iceberg commit, then your secondary commit (the one
done "externally" will look detached, you should replicate the commit
comment, so your CI will show the comment of the commit on which it's
building, etc.

Git favors small commits, but other tools expect atomic commits. They're
not exclusive.

> p.s. Thanks for all the useful debate in this thread. I should add that
> when I wrote “I’ll shut up” - a meant more that I felt the conversation
> was going in a cycle and repeating itself, not that I was offended or
> frustrated. I can probably live with the above nuance for my desire for
> atomic commits.

We're grown ups trying to improve Pharo, so unless stated otherwise or
clear agressions are visible (ad-hominems, passive agressiveness, etc.),
it's healthier to assume all comments are honest, constructive and with
good intentions.

Let's avoid the meta-disussion. :)


Esteban A. Maringolo

More information about the Pharo-users mailing list