Given that they’re both open source and can be customised using turing-complete languages, the only limit to possibilities is how much effort you’re willing to put into customising them. Even CVS has the possibility of working as a distrubuted system if you wrap it up in enough layers of hacky shell scripts ;)

Having done quite a bit with both mercurial (which the sapling CLI is based on) and git, I find that the mercurial approach has a lot more sane defaults, is generally less effort for the same results, and has a lot of quality-of-life improvements — like git has the possibility of doing interactive commits with `git add -i`, but sapling's interactive-commit interface actually makes it usable.

The last thing I want to do is learn a new source control tool. For this to occur, it truly needs to be 10x better and not because someone isn't motivated enough to read the manual.

With how well git has worked for me, I suspect I'll use it for the rest of my career.

> where I haven’t thought of a way to do it with Git.

With git one can do "everything" true, doesn't mean that I want to teach everybody first what a DAG is and how one can manipulate that using git commands, but want to have something simpler. And yeah, git became a lot better over the years, but the plumbing still shines through in many places with inconsistencies.

Understanding a DAG becomes fundamental very quickly when trying to understand how distributed version control works. I would argue the opposite, that the internals are actually very reasonable and generic but it's the porcelain that has made some poor UX choices.