[RFC] proposed user doc for nested trees

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> Thanks for your work, Ian.  I agree most of it.
> 
> That's nice to hear.
> 
>> This means distancing ourselves from the notion of 'by-value' nested
>> trees.  I'm okay with that, but I want to make sure you understand that
>> consequence.
> 
> I struggle to see much benefit in by-value nesting (when by-reference
> nesting is available). So I'm ok with that if others are. Am I missing
> some magic benefit re by-value nesting?
> 

Other than it works fairly well *today*, and by-reference nesting
doesn't ? :)

...

>>> +The ``remove`` command deletes a nested branch when required like this::
>>> +
>>> +  bzr remove src/lib/ancientDB
>>> +  bzr commit -m "delete ancientDB library - no longer used"
>> Actually, isn't that "remove --keep"?  This seems no different from any
>> other file.
> 
> If the library is no longer used, what value is there is keeping a copy
> of the nested branch on disk?
> 

'bzr revert -r X' ?


>> I think a nice extension would be to allow subtrees to be missing and
>> behave as if they were present.
> 
> You'll need to explain this more. I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> Anyhow, I'm *really* pleased you agree with most of what I suggested. It
> was obviously largely based on your work to date but I did exercise a
> fair amount of poetic license in documenting how I'd like to see it
> polished for end users. :-)
> 
> Ian C.
> 
> 

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoDkHcACgkQJdeBCYSNAAN9hwCeK2uckLzj/jhA7W7/vo+tgLOy
IugAnR+qdqZZV/An321fPMmdbUrpwrZW
=VRiB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----