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

Sean Farley sean at farley.io
Mon Jun 12 18:25:35 EDT 2017


Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:36:51 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
>> Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:27:54PM +0900, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > In the name of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I'm
>> > moving forward and queueing this patch, on the following logic:
>> >
>> >  * This syntax doesn't seem like it would ever make sense for anything else
>> >  * mpm's revset operator plan, while pretty well liked by everyone, is big
>> >    enough I'm skeptical it'll get picked up in the near term by anyone
>> 
>> Could we maybe pick apart some of his proposal into smaller bites? For
>> instance, the '{ }' operators might be doable in the shorter term
>> (perhaps for subscripting?).
>
> Sounds good. '{' n '}' operator should be easily implemented as long as n is
> a plain int or symbol. I suggest keeping this feature experimental for a
> couple of months so we can choose the best shorthand notation.

Sounds good to me (though it's not a high priority for me right now).
-------------- 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/20170612/89540a8e/attachment.sig>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list