D2013: commit: allow --no-secret to override phases.new-commit setting

[spectral (Kyle Lippincott)]

spectral added a comment.


  In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2013#33867, @martinvonz wrote:
  
  > I wonder if we should instead have a --draft option for this. Reasons:
  >
  > - If we ever add a fourth phase (like Jun's proposed "archived" phase), then --no-secret doesn't clearly indicate "draft", it could just as well be "archived".
  > - Actually, we of course already do have a third phase. One could imagine a "hg commit --public", although that's probably not useful enough to warrant its own option, but it seems to suggest that "--no-secret" doesn't necessarily mean "draft".
  > - I find this tri-state boolean weird. "--secret" kind of defaults to off, but it can be made "more off" with "--no-secret".
  
  
  Yeah, I wasn't sure I liked it when writing it, and I'm fine with changing it, but do we really want a proliferation of flags?  Perhaps we want a generic 'phase' flag, so one can specify -s or --secret (BC and it's the "most common" case), and --phase <public|draft|secret|archived> for more advanced use-cases?  This runs into a couple small problems, specifically that there's now "more than one way to do it [specify secret]", it's a lot of typing, and I don't think we should abbreviate it `-p` (it just doesn't feel like it's going to be common enough to warrant any abbreviation, let alone 'p', which could stand for phase, or patch, or path, or a number of other words that we might eventually add to `commit` and be sad about not being able to abbreviate in the obvious fashion)

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2013

To: spectral, #hg-reviewers
Cc: martinvonz, mercurial-devel