You don't have mutable branches in Git, I think he refers to commits mercurial don't allow you to alter (public ones).

Local branches in Hg is the same as bookmarks you havent pushed.

Remote tracking branches in Hg would be bookmarks you have pushed.

Those are all Mercurial concepts.

Well, no. These are _at most_ the names of various third-party extensions, which are not even distributed with Core.

Mercurial itself has just heads, which can be named or not. Bookmarks are orthogonal to the whole thing.

Mercurial without enabling extensions such as mq is simple only in the same sense that quilt is simple compared to git. Things quickly become more complex as you try to actually use it and need to enable extensions to do what you can do with git out of the box. The big benefit that git has over mercurial is that it has a powerful and expressive (and yes, complex) core concept. Mercurial quickly becomes a mess of, yes, orthogonal concepts layered on top of each other.

Anyway, you are plain wrong.

* Branches (named and unnamed) are part of core mercurial.

* Bookmarks are part of core mercurial.

* Multiple heads are part of core mercurial.

* Phases are part of core mercurial.

* Secret changesets is part of core mercurial.

* mq is distributed with Mercurial.

* Local branches is an extension that isn't part of core mercurial, I'll give you that. However, calling it a "third-party extension" is pedantic. It's listed on the official mercurial web site, and using extensions is much more a part of every day usage of mercurial than using extensions in git, for example.

edit: formatting.

Not all Git concepts exist in Mercurial. See more here: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts

He's not saying that they are Git concepts that have analogs in Mercurial. He just listed off Mercurial concepts.