+1 from me. I don't like git but am getting forced to use it anyway.

Such people are silly, since those two options are almost identical.

This sentiment seems to be common amongst people who fought their way through git’s somewhat obtuse syntax first.

People coming from the other direction (hg first), I know a lot of people who wish they could go back to mercurial, but for various reasons can’t.

I went from hg -> git in the last couple of years. I'd say they are "almost identical". The key difference is a slightly different mindset on merging and branching IMHO. It can be non-trivial for some of my more hard headed dev brethren to change their way of thinking once they've chosen a method and gotten in the correct mindset.

I went from using mercurial to git and I still have lots of respect for mercurial. I wouldn't mind the switch at all if I needed to work with a team who used mercurial, but personally I still just prefer git.

Yup, that's me in a nutshell. I used svk first and then moved on to mercurial.

Then I had to learn git. I like the model for lightweight branches in git (bookmarks in mercurial) but the step backwards in UI is still irritating. I'm used to it at this point but teaching it to others is a constant source of pain ("git checkout -t/-b"!)

Ugh, no, I fought my way through git first, and I didn't think hg was the same when I encountered it, I thought hg was nigh-unusable after I thrashed at it for a week.

There might be a lot that would complain about being on CVS or SVN...these two are pretty modern, though.