[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Alexander Belchenko wrote:
> Aaron, I've faced with the non-relative branch references in my scmproj
> plugin. I'm also used at the beginning similar scheme to your layout,
> where actual nested components were lightweight checkouts of subbranches.
> 
> Once you will move entire nested construct in the filesystem all
> lightweight checkouts will start to point to wrong location, because
> lightweight checkouts are using absolute paths to their branches.

I'm using checkouts because working trees should be able to move around.
 merge, revert, mv, and others may change the position of a subtree.
But if the subtree's branch reference was relative, moving around could
break the reference.  So I don't think it would be a good idea to make
those branch references relative.

> There is possible to "shit happens": user has moved old nested construct
> to the other location and recreate fresh nested construct in the old
> location. And then lightweight checkouts in the moved locations suddenly
> will start point to the new nested construct.
> 
> Do you think this is the right behavior?

It's the best compromise I can think of.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkoJejMACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI1wiQCffvuGeCU1DG47Uyiy8UYOLf/S
GuIAn2dWQ8RFzpN1RZ9MDkhvMi92JJdt
=wPFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----