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

[Sean Farley]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
> On 7 janv. 2013, at 01:52, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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?)
>
> And if you configured your Mercurial to create secret changeset by default ? Do we needs a --draft option as well ?

Whoops, I see your other email explaining this now. Yeah, to be
honest, I didn't even know about that config setting. Now everything
is unsexy :-( If we had a way to make secret commits, would we even
need the phases.new-commit setting?