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

[Sean Farley]

Pierre-Yves David writes:

> On 10/07/2014 05:44 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>> Augie Fackler writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> The things I'm fighting againts here, is feature creep. I'm not fan of 
> adding new operator because:

This isn't a new operator. It's extending the use of '^' and doesn't
force a new character.

At this point, I'm only interested in what mpm has to say about it and
what direction he wants to go.