Does it make sense to require --force when changing the phase from draft to secret?

[Sean Farley]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Angel Ezquerra <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since the phase command was introduced TortoiseHg has had a "Change
> phase" menu that lets the user change the phase of any revision. If
> the phase moves "forward", i.e. in the secret -> draft -> public
> direction, the phase change happens immediately.
>
> However, if the requested phase change would move the phase
> "backward", TortoiseHg shows a pretty lengthy and kind of scary
> warning asking the user to be careful. This is important when the
> original phase is public, but I wonder if it makes sense when moving
> the phase from draft to secret. IMHO there is little danger in that
> phase change (unless subrepos are involved, but that is a whole
> different subject in itself).
>
> As a matter of fact, mercurial can already be configured to
> automatically move revisions from draft to secret (when importing them
> to mq), and it does so without warning or requiring to use --force.
>
> So I'm considering removing the warning that TortoiseHg shows when
> going from draft to secret. However that would mean behaving a bit
> differently than mercurial, which we don't normally do.
>
> So I'd like to ask your opinion. Does it really make sense to require
> using --force when changing the phase from draft to secret? Other than
> to make things consistent (which is very important of course!) I don't
> see much reason to do so. Would it be OK to have TortoiseHg not show a
> warning in that case?
>
> What do you guys think?

I know I would like a way to move from draft to secret without using
mq or --force. Since I've been using the evolution extension (which is
great!) as a replacement for mq, I find there is no way to create a
commit that is secret. Slightly annoying, but it'd be one less command
to issue :-/