Question

I currently use Git, and am generally happy with it, but I’d like to know more about Mercurial. Does it have any advantages over Git? What are the advantages of Git over Mercurial?

I realize there are already detailed comparisons of the two, but that’s not what I’m asking for. I don’t want dispassionate information, but rather impassioned (but polite!!!) reasons why you think one is better/easier/faster/smarter/stronger/etc.

Answer 1

(A) Top 3 real reasons I use Git rather than Mercurial by choice:

1. historical stochasticity / inertia
2. historical stochasticity / inertia
3. historical stochasticity / inertia

(B) Given the above, the top 3 things I like about Git over Mercurial:

1. the index
2. lightweight branches
3. sane tagging (a tag is not a commit that follows the commit that is being tagged)

(C) The three things Mercurial has for it over Git:

1. better native documentation (emphasis on native, because the ProGit book is simply outstanding, and anyone who has any complaints about Git or the Git model being too complex or confusing should go directly there)
2. sequential commit numbering (local repository scope only, but I imagine this might sometimes be more convenient than cutting-and-pasting SHA-1’s when fiddling about?)
3. nicer logo/name?

I think that all (most?) of the items in (B) are either a result of me being used to the Git model due to (A) or can be “fixed” in Mercurial through plug-ins. But the fact remains that Git works the way I want it to out of the box, and I can live without any of the (C) items [given that C(1) is rendered a non-issue due to the excellent ProGit book]. And, so, I continue to use Git over Mercurial.