No subject

1. Group by whether there is local history or not:

In this case, the "bound branch" and "branch" fit into the "with
history" category and the "lightweight checkout" fits into the
"without history" category.  I can see that, from the point of view of
the people writing Bazaar, this makes a lot of sense as the way the
working copy is handled will depend on the presence or otherwise of
the full branch history.

2. Group by whether the working copy is linked to a server:

In this case, the "heavyweight checkout" and "lightweight checkout"
fit into the "server linked" category (call it "checkout" if you like)
and the "branch" fits into the non-linked category.  For users
(especially those with a centralised server), this makes much more
sense.  Where there is centralised development generally going on, the
user can choose either kind of checkout and everything will be okay.
If they use a branch, it's a VERY BAD THING.  With a heavyweight
checkout, they get some added benefits (working off-line when the
network's down, faster access to revision history etc), but the
heavyweight/lightweight difference is minor compared to the
checkout/branch difference.

With the command line version at the moment, we can tell the users
that they MUST use checkout and they can choose whether to add
"--lightweight".  This is simple to understand (except that most of
our users don't like command line stuff).  To achieve the same with
the current GUI, we have to tell users that they can either use
checkout or they can use branch, but if they use branch, they must
then bind that branch (or in the proposed future version set the
"bind" option).  This is much more confusing and (importantly) much
more prone to error.

Regards,

Al