[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "aaron" == Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

    aaron> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    aaron> Please see
    aaron> http://bazaar-vcs.org/NestedTreesDesign#sub-branches
    aaron> and tell me if there's more I can do to clarify.
    >> 
    >> What about adding: "All these local branches will share the
    >> repository of the containing tree" ?

    aaron> I didn't mean to imply that.  As it stands, the local
    aaron> branches will only share the repository of the
    aaron> containing tree when that repository is a shared
    aaron> repository, following the normal rules for repository
    aaron> sharing.

Ha, I thought you were forcing the containing branch repository
to be shared with the local branches.

    aaron> I'm not necessarily against using the repository of
    aaron> the containing tree.

    aaron> Did you mean that if the containing tree's repository
    aaron> was standalone, we would automatically convert it to
    aaron> shared?

At least with the local branches.

    aaron> Or did you mean that we would refuse to create a
    aaron> branch if the containing tree's repository is not
    aaron> share?

No.

    aaron> Or did you mean that we would create a new branch type
    aaron> that can use a standalone repository as if it's a
    aaron> shared repository?

More or less.

I don't feel safe allowing any kind of branch (repository really)
for the local branches.

If the containing tree's repository references revisions in other
repositories, I feel that we are making the overall layout more
fragile (more than the stacked branches case) and I don't see a
clear way to guard against that.

That's why I thought you addressed that by using a shared
repository between containing tree and local branches.

If that's not the case, I think
http://bazaar-vcs.org/NestedTreesDesign#sub-branches should still
be clarified by using more positive definitions.

           Vincent