[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
>>> Am I missing
>>> some magic benefit re by-value nesting?
>> by-value nesting is available now and works now
> 
> IIUIC, "works now" applies only to projects using a non-chk rich-root
> format, yes? (WorkingTree.subsume() looks like it needs tweaks to
> support CHKInventories.)

I wasn't aware of problems with WT.subsume and CHK formats.

>>> If the library is no longer used, what value is there is keeping a copy
>>> of the nested branch on disk?
>> Being able to access old revisions.
> 
> But that still ought to be possible without the tree there, yes?

Sure, as long as the branch is there.  But since you said "nested
branch", I thought you meant deleting the actual branch.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoEw10ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI0jMACgg4bEsnVfcm2ovMppdXvxCVhQ
N8UAn2RDPbFhPegrSRlo4x/RcbDLs5JX
=KqT8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----