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
