How to indicate (locally) mercury that the server is not published?

Question

How can I claim that the remote server (on bitbucket ) is not published when I do not have access to the remote .hg/hgrc ?

Background

Recent versions of Mercurial have a phase concept that lets you keep track of which changes have been shared ( public ) and which haven't ( draft ). Repository change operations such as rebase allowed on draft change sets, but not public changes, as others may depend on the latter.

Clicking change sets on a public server by default changes its phase to public , but if the server is private or is dedicated to code reviews (that is, people cannot pull it out), then clicking on this "non-publication" server should not change the phase.

The documented way to tell mercurial that the server is not published is to add the [phases] section to the .hg/hgrc on the server:

 [phases] publishing = false 

It seems to me that there should be a way to include a line in one of my local hgrc files, which says that a specific server is not published, but I cannot find any documentation to suggest how to do this. Perhaps this behavior can be customized with a hook?

References

• https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Phases
• Introduction to the Mercury Phases
• After clicking on the peer review repository, "undo: it is not possible to reinstall the immutable set of changes" on rebase

Answer 1

There is currently no way to do this, and he hopefully never happens.

That's why:
If you allow the local repository to override the configuration of the remote repository, you simply make the whole phase mechanism useless. The phase point is to prohibit the user from performing actions that may “damage” the synchronization stream.
The responder must describe how the accepted changes will be used. If you invert this logic by allowing the sender to override these parameters, then how can you ensure that two senders use the same configuration? If the configuration is different, which one should be saved? How should changes be made to the receiver?

To some extent, it would be the same as if the local repository could click on a set of remote applications without permission, simply overriding the local remote configuration.