Making "hg push -r foo" changes phases

[Laurens Holst]

Op 17-06-13 17:28, Angel Ezquerra schreef:
> 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>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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 $@
>>>>> I'm still trying to figure out a way to use secret phases that seems
>>>>> to make sense to everyone I talk to. Making everyone else use the
>>>>> secretpush alias seems a bit wrong.
>>>>    Well, I don't know. Current situation regarding pushing secret
>>>> changesets
>>>> makes sense to me. It is simple and consistent, and you can build up on
>>>> it
>>>> when you're sure what you want.
>>>>
>>>>> I think a proposal I had earlier for giving commit a --secret option
>>>>> might make more sense. You know at the time of committing something if
>>>>> that something should probably not be shared yet.
>>>>
>>>> [alias]
>>>> secommit = !$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
>>> dialog.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ~Laurens
>>
> 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".

So, if you use the config option on commit instead of forcing the phase 
backwards, there would be no need for such a warning in the normal flow.

~Laurens