Yeah, I already wanted to suggest the same.

BetterAddonList lets you build nested sets. I really like the neat features of SimpleAddonManager, but without nested sets, honestly, I will probably never use it.

Let me explain why:

In BetterAddonList, the addon tree for my 20 toons looks roughly like this:

                  Base Set for all
                        |       \
                        |        \  
                        |       Some specialized sets
                        |              …
                  Base Set for 
                  Normal and Support
                   /           \
                  /             \
              Resting Set    Banker Set
                |               |
              Light Set      AH toon Set
                |
             Standard Set
                |        \
              Full Set    \
                           \
                         PvP Set

As the tree design suggests, these sets are nested: the child sets, lower in the tree, contain all addons of the parent sets they are connected to.

Some examples:

The Base Set contains such basic addons like TinyPad, M6, OPie. The Base Set for Normal and Support contains addons that are needed for all sets, except for the specialized sets (eg WeakAuras, ArkInventory, Bazooka, Leatrix, etc.).

There it branches out to Normal (normal toons) and Support (bankers and AH toons), both based on the Base Set for Normal and Support.

The Resting Set contains addons needed for a normal toon's everyday indoor life (crafting addons, VenturePlan, BrokerAnything, WQAchievements, but also pet battle stuff, etc.). An AH toon doesn't need that stuff.

Based on that, the Light Set is for quick excursions, like killing a rare or two, or a quick Utgarde Pinaccle run for the (damn) mount, therefore it has addons like SilverDragon and Rarity.

Standard Set is for, well, standard stuff like instances or extended world-questing, with addons like Raven, Hekili, TomTom, etc. The Full Set is almost identical but has heavy-weights like Grail/Wholly and is meant for example for doing old questlines for achievements or legendaries and such.

An example for the (only semi-nested) specialized sets is a "Mission table only" set, for non-crafting toons, that has only VenturePlan (plus the Base Set for All, but not the stuff from Base Set for Normal and Support). Or a Torghast set with some specific addons that are useless for anything else.

The main reason for having different addon sets is loading time. My Standard set takes 25-35 seconds to load. When I login just for the mission table, or the AH, I want a short loading screen, hence the smaller sets.

Another reason is technical issues. For example, TSM is notoriously buggy and tends to conflict with other addons, so I would never want to use that on any toon except the AH toons.

The third reason is – and now we come to the point – that with nested sets I can realize all that without much work:) The tree might look complicated, but it isn't.

If an addon manager does not have nested sets, I would have to create each set as standalone set, and the maintenance of the sets would be very time-intensive:

Especially in transition phases between xpacs, like now, I often have to replace a non-working addon by a similar one, until it gets fixed, and then activate the old one again. Without nested sets, I would have to do that for each and every set where the addon is contained. With nested sets, I replace the addon once, in the set where it is contained, and then it gets inherited by the child sets. Simple.

Of course, if you have just 3 toons and a banker, you can probably live with two sets, or even use the Blizz addon manager, but once you have half an army of toons, differentiated – and nested! – sets are a huge help.

– Tom

Originally posted by @tflo in #9 (comment)

Sorry, I had completely missed your 1.16 update 4 days ago.

Test-wise, I have transferred now all my sets and nestings from the BetterAddonList SV to SAM's SV table, and… it looks pretty damn good :)

…

Guess, I'll do the move :)

The way how I can manage the sets and nested sets in SAM is so much better than in BAL, namely the Save (*) function is a game changer!
With BAL, I configured my sets with the text editor directly in the SV file (and locked it afterwards), because it was simply too clunky to do that in the GUI.¹ With SAM it seems feasible to do this in the GUI again!

Many thanks for adopting my suggestion, and above all for the intelligent implementation!

Thanks for moving.

Done in: 9295fcb