Repair actions in Detached working copy state should be more coherent

[guillep]

They should all talk about "working copy" instead of "image" or "local" changes.

[bencoman]

Copied from my mail list post...

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"