Comment 6 for bug 185298

Thinking today about this more I've realized that both --branch and --tree are not very helpful names and they required from user to understand is he/she has branch+tree locally or lightweight checkout only. Therefore we may have endless source for confusion and questions from new users. Maybe something like --local would be better, and it will automatically save id info in the branch.conf or (imaginary) tree.conf. Going further we might need --master option too, to imitate current --branch behavior for light checkout. (I can imagine very rare case when user want to have one master branch and zillion light checkouts on zillion computers and want to have a single id settings among those). Such --master option will behave in the same manner as --local for regular branch/tree.

So what I said above maybe just bikesheding, and we just need implement tree.conf first. And only then thinking about this issue.