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 <d...@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 * We can always stop advertising this syntax if we get a better solution in place. David, thank you for picking this back up and finding a way to get something shipped. I know it was more than a little uphill to get to this point. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
