Thoughts on revision control systems

Here is a link to an article that compares some revision control systems:
http://seppuku.editthispage.com/2003/07/30

The article is not very detailed but it's a good starting point.
I didn't know some of the mentioned tools before (darcs for example, 
which sounds really interesting ["based ... on operators of the Quantum 
Mechanics", "written in Haskell", "token patches"]).

One thing I do not understand is what the author means with the "CVS 
interop" of arch - probably it's possible to convert CVS repositories to 
arch archives?

I suggest that we have a look at some of the more interesting 
alternatives (darcs, aegis and arch of course) before we decide which 
tool to use.

So far, I think arch is quite good, I even managed to display the diffs 
between to old revisions (or rather patch levels in arch terminology) by 
now ;).
The main features that seem to beat CVS and Subversion are, in my 
opinion, the possibility to work on an offline repository (with history 
sensitive merging later on) and the so called "cherrypicking" of 
patches, that is the possibility to decide which patches go into one 
specific distribution of the software. (I didn't try that stuff yet).

I would like to propose some important features that can be used to help 
with the decision for the right tool (provided it supports all the basic 
features that CVS has):

   - offline work possible
   - anonymous access easy to set up and use
   - commit access easy to set up and use
   - client available for unix and windows


Regards,

Georg