In D3209#51512, @quark wrote:

Returning 1 is actually more consistent with other core commands like pull, push, commit. See https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2012-January/037711.html. Scripts should be updated to use $? explicitly.

In D2729#46372, @martinvonz wrote:

Greg has some concerns about this patch and it sounds like you will make some changes. The patch was queued by Augie, but I'm dropping it for now, so we don't have a slightly controversial patch written by a Googler queued by two other Googlers.

Ah, there's a "Request Review" that I'd never noticed before, choosing that to hopefully get this out of "Requires Revision"

In D2889#46482, @yuja wrote:

Not reviewed yet, but this can't be applied cleanly. Can you rebase?

In D2729#45664, @indygreg wrote:

I'm sorry, but we cannot ship this as is.

The reason is mtime based build systems, like GNU make.

We can't have version control modifying files without bumping their mtime because this invalidates the target freshness checks of mtime-based build systems.

In D2678#45552, @durin42 wrote:

Ugh:

--- /home/augie/hg/tests/test-alias.t
+++ /home/augie/hg/tests/test-alias.t.err
@@ -357,15 +357,8 @@
 properly recursive

   $ hg dln
-  changeset:   -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-  phase:       public
-  parent:      -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-  parent:      -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-  manifest:    -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-  user:
-  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
-  extra:       branch=default
-
+  abort: alias 'dln' resolves to unknown command 'lognull'
+  [255]

Neat, didn't know about the inline python stuff. That's much nicer.

In D2013#43547, @martinvonz wrote:

In D2013#43542, @indygreg wrote:

@spectral: what's the state of this series? Do you plan to submit a follow-up?

I think he's waiting for me to hopefully do it in a more generic way. I have been working on that. Turned out that in order to create a generic utility for moving phase, bookmarks, obsmarkers, we needed to be able to do that during interrupted rebase/histedit. So I'm first making rebase and histedit incrementally move bookmarks and add obsmarkers. I've been making good progress on that and can hopefully have a series out in a day or two (been blocked by other stuff).

If you get tired of waiting, I'm perfectly fine with getting this series in in some form first. I think it would be good to do that without the --no-secret since I found it a little odd. Perhaps just make it experimental?

(I'm stepping in and responding while rdamazio is out for a few days)

Sorry, I forgot about this, can you take another look? I believe I addressed your most recent comment.

In 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".

I've also been seeing these failures, thanks!