[PATCH] revset: allow negative integers to list child revs

Augie Fackler raf at durin42.com
Tue Oct 7 19:37:33 CDT 2014

On Oct 7, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Yes, of course, but this is derailing the current discussion. We have
>>> the concept of local revision numbers and this patch is a way to refer
>>> to that. I would suggest another discussion about the order of
>>> children().
>> This is not to challenge the order of children(X). This is to point out 
>> that children can barely be used alone and therefor having a supershort 
>> version of it is not that useful.
> I'm surprised you are being this stubborn about it. It is very, very
> common to have a set of linear changes. It is even still common to be in
> a situation where you only have a reference to the parent of a
> changeset.

I could see a claim that an "only child of" operator would be more useful than an "arbitrary child" operator (that is, abort if len(children) != 1). Maybe that'd be the useful middle ground here?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20141007/cdbaa145/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list