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

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 10/08/2014 08:09 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
> 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.

Can I get you to look at the rest of the email and acknowledge the other 
points?

-- 
Pierre-Yves David