Simplified Tutorial (alternatives to "init-repo")

[Jari Aalto+usenet]

* Sat 2006-05-06 John Arbash Meinel <john AT arbash-meinel.com>
* Message-Id: 445D73D3.1060706 AT arbash-meinel.com
>
> And I think that is the way we can make it clear in user's minds. "If
> you create a repository with 'bzr init-repo', branches in subdirectories
> will use it for storing history. Otherwise, each branch will create its
> own repository inside the .bzr directory for that branch".

>From UI point of view, if possible, please reconsider using some other
command for:

    init-repo

It took very long time to understand that "Ah, this is the command to
make it possible for branches to use same history". It doesn' even
have the magix word "shared" as used in current documentation.

How about:

    --meta init   ("meta" as "top level" collection of branches)

Also, should the terminology also switch to use:

    meta repositories

instead of "shared repositories"?

Indeed, the word shared is highly associated with the CVS/SVN model of
multiple users and access rights. 

WILD IDEA

The command "init" was nice at start, but now when thigs are much
further, the "init" may not quite cut it in the long term. Perhaps
it would be time to reconsider alternatives to repository creation
command: 

    bzr repo[sitory]
    bzr --meta repo[sitory]

I think the current set of two commands is not optional. We should not
have more commands if the logical use it to "make repository". The
switches can fine tune what exactly is wanted.

I tend to consider "repository" the location where bzr keeps its
control data to make the "ci, diff" operations possible. I don't know
if this excatly maps to the internals how bzr operates.

Jari