[PATCH V2] help: hide command line options marked as "advanced"

[Jun Wu]

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2016-11-19 11:05:25 +0100:
> 
> On 11/02/2016 03:10 AM, Jun Wu wrote:
> > Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2016-11-02 02:52:36 +0100:
> >>
> >> On 11/02/2016 12:49 AM, Jun Wu wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2016-11-02 00:41:03 +0100:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/01/2016 04:08 PM, Jun Wu wrote:
> >>>>> # HG changeset patch
> >>>>> # User Jun Wu <quark at fb.com>
> >>>>> # Date 1478011845 0
> >>>>> #      Tue Nov 01 14:50:45 2016 +0000
> >>>>> # Node ID 058074cf24ce30ee0bc6d6a4d91fbe35631f8e8e
> >>>>> # Parent  264f00b3e5f045ac5b58d79e2a3976585f4e7739
> >>>>> # Available At https://bitbucket.org/quark-zju/hg-draft 
> >>>>> #              hg pull https://bitbucket.org/quark-zju/hg-draft    -r 058074cf24ce
> >>>>> help: hide command line options marked as "advanced"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Previously, we have keywords like "(DEPRECATED)" and "(EXPERIMENTAL)" to
> >>>>> hide command line options in non-verbose help output.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, sometimes an option is neither deprecated nor experimental. It's
> >>>>> well-tested and working, but just not designed to average users. This patch
> >>>>> adds a keyword "(ADVANCED)" to fit in such use cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks rom1dep for the suggestion of the word "advanced".
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we have any candidate for this in core ?
> >                     ^^^^^^^^^
> >                     It can be "other keyword candidates".
> >
> >>>
> >>> It should be better than "(VERBOSE)".
> >>
> >> I'm very confused by this reply. My question is
> >>
> >> "Do we currently have any flag in core that could benefit from this new
> >> feature?"
> >
> > I couldn't find candidates easily. For evolve, I think "graft -o/-O" may
> > qualify.
> 
> I'm more looking for user in core.
> 
> hg serve have some flag only used by other script, they seems good 
> candidate. This could make good initial user
> 
>      --stdio                     for remote clients
>      --cmdserver MODE            for remote clients
> 
> The --ssh related flag for clone and push/pull are probably good 
> candidate too (but it is less clear)
> 
> Can you send a V3 flag --stdio and --cmdserver as advanced, I would most 
> probably take that.

Do you mean folding the flag changes into this patch? I think that should be
a separate patch (and you agreed on this on IRC).

I'm not sure what needs to be changed for this patch. If I send a V3 of two
patches where the second is the flag change as you described, the first
patch in V3 would be identical to the current one. I'm not sure why is that
better than queuing this + sending just the flag change patch.

> 
> Cheers,
>