question about fold

[Neal Becker]

Augie Fackler wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This morning I copied some of my updates from machine 1 to machine 2.
>> Everything was built fine on m1, so I pulled the update to m2.  But it
>> didn't build on m2.  I had forgotten to add/ci some files.  So I fixed
>> that on m1 and pulled to m2.
>>
>> So this would seem like a perfect use for fold.  Now I have 2 different
>> commits, the first says:
>>
>> added feature foo
>>
>> and 2nd says:
>>
>> more foo
>>
>> or something to that effect.
>>
>> But I can't use fold, because fold refused to operate on 'public' repos.
>>
>> So finally, here is my question.  Is this restriction necessary, or could
>> it
>> be eventually removed?  Just wondering.
> 
> This is intentional, as part of a plan to prevent accidentally
> modifying history that you've published to others. If you add
> 
> [phases]
> publish = false
> 
> to ~/.hgrc, then those machines won't be considered to have
> "published" changes when they serve them to other clients. Does that
> make sense?
> 

Somehow this doesn't feel all that useful to me.  For my own use, I doubt 
I'd be marking repos as experimental apriori.  I'm always ready to believe 
my changes are finished, except when I find out they're not.

> (We know this is complicated and slightly annoying - improving it is
> on the agenda eventually.)
> 
> For the present day problem, you can probably do 'hg phase --force
> --draft' on the changes that shouldn't be marked public and then
> you'll be able to edit them.
> 

And where machine2 pulls those changes, it won't complain?  For example, it 
won't care about the change in phase after having already pulled the 1st 
change, correct?