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

[Jun Wu]

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.

> >
> >> We probably need to hint the fact we have more to show here. Having
> >> verbose section display a note about it, we should have the same here.
> >
> > It currently displays the same way as other keywords:
> > "(some details hidden, use --verbose to show complete help)".
> > That's included in the .t change below.
> >
> > Do you mean a different hint text? I don't think it's that useful.
> 
> Ha, I someone missed that line in the test. Sorry. I don't think we need 
> anything other hint.
>