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

[Sean Farley]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
> On 7 janv. 2013, at 01:16, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> 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 :-/
>
> you can use:
>
>    hg commit --config phases.new-commit=secret
>
> OK, this is a terrible user interface.
> To make it worse, config option can not be aliased.
>
> We could have a better user interface. It every body responsibility to comes with good idea on this topic.

Well, it would be a start, at least, to have `hg commit -s/--secret`
(maybe too confusing with -S/--subrepos?)

> ps: make sure you are up to date with your evolve extension.

Always!