[PATCH RFC] revset: lookup descendents for negative arguments to ancestor operator

[Sean Farley]

David Soria Parra <dsp at experimentalworks.net> writes:

> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:17:58PM -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> 
>> It's easy to allow child traversal only if it's unambigious, and come
>> back to it later and be more permissive later. It'll be hard to go the
>> other way though.
>> 
>> (I'm lightly in favor of this series, +0-ish, but I need to re-read
>> mpm's operator plan and see how they overlap, it's been too long.)
>> 
>
> What's the conclusion on the RFC patch? Is that something we want with the
> current restrictions? Of other people like greg, sid, etc need to weight in?

I agree with Augie's error-now-easier-permissive-later argument, for
what it's worth. I can change my vote to a +0 as well.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20170605/4f925836/attachment.sig>