RE: CVS questions

Sergei,


> Sorry Arthur, I don't follow. Those VCS'es I've talked about are
> distributed and therefore are fundamentally different from
> CVS/CVSNT/SVN. There is simply no server nor inherent central 
> repository
> in their model of operation, and there are concepts that are not
> applicable to centralized VCSes. 


I'm no expert on distributed revision control systems - however from
what I do know I'm willing to concede that disctributed VC's are a
special case.

However at a pragmatic level - the majority of differences with
distributed version control are still in the clients.  The fact that a
distributed client may be less inclined to commit every revision is
irrelevant - the revisions that the client/person does choose to send to
the EVSCM server are the only ones the EVSCM server will track (unless
the client/person is capable of sending all the intermediate revisions -
in which case it will track them too).  

In my early post I was mixing up the arguments you were making about
CVS/SVN/CVSNT with the argument you were making about Git/etc because
I've had plently of people tell me that SVN is COMPELTELY DIFFERENT form
CVS and can do SO MANY THINGS THAT CVS CANNOT - which is just rubbish -
CVS clients just present the process differently - at the end of the day
any SCM server tracks and stores the same information and we are in the
process of proving it with EVSCM by having a single server allow a
variety of clients to operate 'natively'.  

Regards,


Arthur