[BUG] Bind updates the branch, but not the working tree

[John Yates]

> --local says 'make a single local commit', the branches remain bound,
> and the next commit will push both into the master.

First, I love the functionality.

But this feels like a UI gotcha.  The commit command
has different semantics depending on whether the target
branch is bound or unbound.  If I multiplex between the
two kinds of branches I am sure that I will find myself
issuing a commit to a bound branch when I expected to
commit locally.

How about using one term (commit? save? record?) to refer
exclusively to operations on a private branch and a second
term (share? publish? expose?) to refer to operations on a
shared branch?

/john