I feel like I am taking crazy pills whenever somebody says that mercurial is simpler than git. Mercurial's per-file revlog and structured .hg/store/data is way weirder / more complex than git's SHA-addressed DAG with minimal/orthogonal object types. The only real blemish on git is that lightweight tags should not exist.

I'm pretty sure he's talking from the user's perspective, not design/implementation.

Eh, I am coming from the perspective of a user, not a VCS developer. I find git repositories way easier to navigate, let alone perform complex operations on, because how they work couldn't make more sense to me.

From a user's perspective, Hg is so limited I consider it basically unusable.

I seem to get my stuff done in either. What's missing for you in hg?

Being an active user of both git and hg, I also can't think of any features I make extensive use of in git (rebase, feature branches, etc) that I can't get with hg. My workflows in both are pretty much the same, just a saner interface on the hg side. If anything, git doesn't have revsets, a really powerful query language you can use to sift through your history - see http://www.selenic.com/hg/help/revsets

rebase -i and add --patch were the dealbreakers

Also I have yet to see a hg tutorial that didn't at some point recommend making a second clone of the repo in order to do something complicated.

As someone once commented, git is a great library for building a VCS system. Great design.

The tooling around it? Not so much. http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/04/git-koans/

The default tooling is either your cup of tea, or it isn't. There is great 3rd party tooling available if your tastes are different though, such as where Github and I assume Bitbucket are moving. I think those are probably the future of git (and/or mercurial) use for non-technical users.

Probably mercury poisoning. It will make you as mad as a hatter. Symptoms include inability to rebase branches or rewrite history, choking on large repos, inability to do more than two-way merges, and clumsy handling of branches. Clean cup, move down, I guess.

> Mercurial is a better tool than Git in almost every aspect.

No need to proclaim personal tastes as absolute truths around here.

In any case, Bitbucket has complete git support.

> No need to proclaim personal tastes as absolute truths around here.

In all fairness, we all do that a lot.

Right, but github only allows, well, git repositories. If they added hg support I'd have a strong reason to think about putting repositories on my github account.

Adding hg support would be kinda awkward given their name.

I use and enjoy using Mercurial for most of my projects.

But it has nothing, NOTHING as good as git rebase -i

"hg histedit" is almost exactly the same as "git rebase -i", right down to the UI.

You have just made a huge improvement on my work life! Thanks so much

I totally agree. Its one of those tools that stays out of your way unless you `need` to do something weird (unfortunately when you need to do that some times it can get really wierd). I feel like with git the base line is fairly complicated.

I would love to see you and Linux Torvalds have a discussion :)