[PATCH 0 of 4 phases] secret changeset creation and exchange

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 01:52 +0100, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> Here is a resent of patch 4 and 6 with the ui option implementation.
> 
> First patch is a small doc update independent from 3 others patches.
> 
> I was not very happy with adding the secret argument to commitctx and I'm glad
> to replace it with a ui option. This options is named "phases.new-commit".
> While writing this down I'm thinking "phase.min-commit-phase" might be better.
> What do you think ?
> 
> However I fell like a secret switch on commit are still pretty handy (based on
> my experimentation of replacing mq with obsolete). If there is a clear
> opposition to such switch, patch 3 may be ignored if "--secret" switch in tests
> are replaced by proper --config call. Test update from patch 3 should be
> applied in all case.

I think I'd rather introduce a command to manipulate phases manually
(which we'll already need) rather than introduce command line options to
a bunch of commands.

If I do a commit with no options on top of a secret changeset, what
happens? Do we inherit the secret state?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.