Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[Richard Stallman]

    You can commit a change offline (git commit).  Later on, when you are
    online, you say `git pull' to get the current state of the repository,
    and automatical merging happens (and the usual warnings if there are
    conflicts).  Finally, you say `git push' to synchronize your git
    repository with the global one.

Is this substantially different from CVS, or is it just relabeling?
It sounds like `git push' is basically equivalent to CVS commit.

With CVS, until you commit your changes, new changes can be installed
in the repository, and when you DO get around to committing your
changes, you will have to merge them with whatever others have
installed.  Once you commit, others trying to commit will have the
burden of merging their changes with your already-committed changes.

With git, I would guess that the same situation obtains
until you do `git push' with your changes.  Thus, I think that
`git push' is the true analogue to CVS commit.

This is based on surmise rather than knowledge.  If it is wrong,
where is the mistake?