D3684: shelve: merge in obsshelve changes implemented at facebook

[Sean Farley]

durin42 (Augie Fackler) <phabricator at mercurial-scm.org> writes:

> durin42 created this revision.
> Herald added a subscriber: mercurial-devel.
> Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.
>
> REVISION SUMMARY
>   test-obsshelve.t could be merged with test-shelve.t at some point, but
>   for now I want the comprehensive coverage. Note that obsshelve in
>   hg-experimental is a fork of shelve, so we're just merging things back
>   together. The path to graduation from experimental for obsshelve is to
>   have a better solution around hiding revisions without creating a ton
>   of markers that'll get exchanged. We've spent a fair amount of time
>   talking about what that should look like, but in the interim the
>   experimental-branded obsshelve is a good thing we should have in core.
>
>   As a follow-up I'd like to make obsshelve a case of test-shelve.t, but
>   I thought this would be easier for the initial import.

I'm trying to catch up on this discussion, so apologies if this is the
wrong thread to reply to.

I've been mulling on this problem for quite some time now. To clarify,
I'm referring to the problem of hiding / stripping changesets that are
known not to be shared. I keep coming back to the idea of a new phase
because it is so elegant. Looking at the other patch series, I am sad we
didn't implement the phases using the < operator and instead testing
directly for the name of the phase.

Having a "internal-only" phase makes a lot of sense for temporary
commits that only hg is making. In fact, I'd like to suggest taking it
even further: not making obs markers for anything above the draft phase
(i.e. secret, internal, etc.). This would push development of wip
branches to perhaps be secret instead of the default draft.

Glancing at the other discussions in IRC and on the list, it seems we're
mostly agreed on the new phase?

P.S. I think I adjusted my email filters to put phabricator emails I'm
tagged in directly into my inbox; so replying to this message would help
test that (even if just to say, "we should this discussion to another
thread")
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20180614/38cf85fe/attachment.sig>