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

[Yuya Nishihara]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:55:21 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
> 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.

I don't strongly disagree with that. If people like it, please feel free to
move forward. FWIW, calling children() repeatedly wouldn't be the best way
to scan descendant revisions.