[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[Vincent Ladeuil]

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

    aaron> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    >>>>>>> "aaron" == Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
    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> Repositories are shared or unshared.  There's no
    aaron> option for them to be partially shared.

Well, nothing was forbidding you to make an exception for this
case :) 

    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?

I thought you wanted to do that yes.

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

Argh, *every* not *any*, sorry :-(


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

    aaron> I have reorganized it to put the declarations first
    aaron> and the rationale afterward.  Does that help?

It's better, far better.

So indeed, your force the kind of branch for the local branches
to be lightweight checkouts pointing to .bzr/branches in the
containing tree. *That* kind of branch I feel safer with :)

A side note: You said: 'bzr should create local branches in
.bzr/branches' and 'they shall be called "subbranches"', why not
use .bzr/subbranches ?

    Vincent