[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

<mode lurk="off" />

Martin Pool writes:

 > I agree that calling them 'nested trees' would be clearer than
 > 'nested branches'.

At least coming from a git background, that's confusing.  The point is
that (git) trees are *historyless*, and to me "nested tree" suggests
that the containing branch is going to record the history.

If in general that is true of Bazaar (that is, *trees* manage
versionable content, *branches* record versioning and history), then
"nested trees" makes the situation sound more straightforward and less
powerful/useful than it actually is.

 > I think this document needs a bit more detail about what's
 > happening behind the ui, and so does this conversation if it's to
 > move forward smoothly.  You cover it pretty well in some places by
 > say what is or isn't stored, but I think for users to really
 > understand this they need a model of what's recorded in the
 > committed inventories/revisions, what's in the working tree, and
 > what's in the branch/es.

Aside: Since users will actually want to access these things, I'd call
this "UI".  FWIW, I think that *for discussion*, more use-cases are
what I'd like to see -- I'm finding it *very* hard to imagine what
other people might use this feature for ;-) -- and *for the document*,
what needs to go on in the API and implementation should follow the
needs of the use cases at first.

 > I'd like, more for the sake of this discussion though it would also
 > help users, to see how this would be shown by 'bzr status'.

+1

<mode lurk="on" />