What do I call a working tree that stores its revisions in a shared repository?

[Paul Moore]

This sounds like a dumb question, but it's one that I found *really*
hard when I was putting together my performance figures. The
performance of branching to a standalone tree is *far* worse than for
branching to a ... well, a working tree that uses a shared repository.
So it seems to me that the far more common physical object probably
ought to be a working tree using a shared repository, both for
performance and disk usage reasons - but there's no simple name for
it!

I can't even think of a good name to suggest, because it's not a
property of the directory itself, but more of where it's located. The
best I can think of is a "dependent tree" or something - to reflect
the fact that while you can rename or move a standalone tree as you
like, but a "dependent tree" is tied to its location in relation to
the shared repository.

Can anyone come up with something better?

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, that's a significant problem with
shared repositories in some situations, the fact that you *can't*
treat them as independent objects (zip them up, move them around,
email them, etc). It's probably the main reason why, in spite of the
space penalties, I'd much rather use standalone trees - and why I am
so discouraged by the huge performance penalties they incur on large
repositories. So although I can see the benefits of shared
repositories, I don't like feeling that they are necessary, the way I
do at the moment for large projects.

Paul.

PS Given that it's possible to copy standalone trees *far* faster than
"bzr branch"-ing them, is there any reason not to create a branch via
copying instead of branching?