Making it easy to really create private local branching

[dukeofgaming]

I think it actually is necessary since draft is still public in the sense
that it gets pushed.


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Angel Ezquerra <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:17 AM, dukeofgaming <dukeofgaming at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was thinking that some like the way branching works in git because of
> > this: private local branching.
> >
> > I've seen some complain "but Mercurial pushes everything by default!,
> that
> > makes me sad", and "to have private local in branching in mercurial you
> have
> > to copy your whole project or create another clone!", which to me is a
> silly
> > option, but I see it still sticks around due to cultural factors.
> >
> > Then there are Mercurial Phases to do this, but it is slightly cumbersome
> > IMHO, enough to somewhat discourage their use:
> >
> > # hg branch my_branch
> > # hg commit -m "Opening branch"
> > # hg id -n
> > 123
> > # hg phase --secret --force 123
> >
> > And you have a private local branch, yes?
> >
> > So how about if instead we had a --phase option in branch:
> >
> > # hg branch my_branch --phase secret
> >
> > So that the next commit on that branch would be secret (and the rest as a
> > consequence). Or even better, in commit, that way we don't have to use
> > --force for brand new commits after the fact.
> >
> > # hg branch my_branch
> > # hg commit -m "Opening secret branch" --phase secret
> >
> > Or even, even better, how about both?, what do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David
>
> What a funny coincidence. I just sent another email to the list
> suggesting that perhaps --force should not be necessary when changing
> the phase from draft to secret.
>
> Angel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20130107/ed3b5c25/attachment.html>