[MERGE] Add two new help topics

[Ian Clatworthy]

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>   
>> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>     
>>> I think we want to be more explicit about "shared repository" versus
>>> just "repository". Also having the term "shared repository" might help
>>> distinguish it from darcs/git/hg which just use the term "repository" to
>>> mean *everything*.
>>>       
>> Longer term, I'm reconsidering the decision to call them "Repositories".
>>  At the time I suggested it, I don't think anyone realized it was
>> becoming an ambiguous term.  Perhaps "Archive" would be better, at least
>> for the user-visible "Shared Repository".  Because Archive doesn't mean
>> anything to darcs/git/hg/svn/cvs users, it leaves us free to define it.
>>  (And the term is a good match for Arch users, if any are left.)
>>     
>
> yeah. ISTR having this discussion in Canada a long time ago (1.5 yr?).
> We have a little bit of legacy at this point, but at least we can
> migrate away from confusion.
>   
I like the idea a *lot* of not using a name that already implies 
something to users coming from cvs, svn, etc. In terms of commands, the 
main legacy looks like init-repository but, to state the obvious, the 
API will be a whole lot harder. It will be annoying to have Archive 
(say) externally and Repository in the code. Even more annoying will be 
to have duplicate classes with both Archive and Repository throughout 
the code.

If we are going to make this terminology change, I'd rather we made it 
in the next release or so. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be 
to kill the old term both formally (UI, code) ad informally (mail lists, 
IRC, conversations, etc.).

Ian C.