Making "hg push -r foo" changes phases
angel.ezquerra at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 10:28:16 CDT 2013
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam at grauw.nl> wrote:
> Op 17-06-13 17:10, Angel Ezquerra schreef:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Nikolaj Sjujskij <sterkrig at myopera.com>
>>> Den 2013-06-14 22:32:30 skrev Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
>>> <jordigh at octave.org>:
>>>> On 14 June 2013 14:25, Nikolaj Sjujskij <sterkrig at myopera.com> wrote:
>>>>> By the way, have you considered using [alias]
>>>>> secretpush = !$HG phase -d $@ ; $HG push -r $@
>>>> I'm still trying to figure out a way to use secret phases that seems
>>>> to make sense to everyone I talk to. Making everyone else use the
>>>> secretpush alias seems a bit wrong.
>>> Well, I don't know. Current situation regarding pushing secret
>>> makes sense to me. It is simple and consistent, and you can build up on
>>> when you're sure what you want.
>>>> I think a proposal I had earlier for giving commit a --secret option
>>>> might make more sense. You know at the time of committing something if
>>>> that something should probably not be shared yet.
>>> secommit = !$HG commit $a ; $HG phase -fs .
>>>> Also, going from
>>>> secret to anything else doesn't require a force from hg phase, but
>>>> going from anything to secret does.
>>> Yep, I agree. I se no reason why "draft -> secret" needs --force.
>>> I think only manipulating with public changesets should require it.
>> I agree with this. In fact we have recently changed the "warning",
>> confirmation dialog that is shown by TortoiseHg when you change the
>> phase from draft to secret. We used to tell the user that this was an
>> operation that had to be "forced". Even the "OK" button said "Force"
>> in its label. Now we have changed it (for this particular, draft to
>> secret transition) to say "Make secret". We thought that the original
>> message may discourage people from using secret revisions, which I
>> think is not right.
>> Personally I'd prefer it if moving from draft to secret did not
>> require --force, in which case we would remove the confirmation
> I think TortoiseHg should reinstate the above mentioned warnings, because it
> needs to be forced for a reason (see my previous mail), and instead offer a
> “create secret” checkbox in the commit flow which commits with the --config
> new-commit=secret option.
There is a confirmation dialog which says:
Backwards phase change requested
Do you really want to make this revision secret?
Making a "draft" revision "secret" is generally a safe operation.
However, there are a few caveats:
- "secret" revisions are not pushed. This can cause you trouble if you
refer to a secret subrepo revision.
- If you pulled this revision from a non publishing server it may be
moved back to "draft" if you pull again from that particular server.
Please be careful!
&Make secret &Cancel
This is not a warning in the sense that there is no warning icon on
the dialog, and that instead of "Force" it says "Make secret".
More information about the Mercurial-devel