I think hg was/is important, to provide competition to git. But I don't really understand all the people arguing that hg is so much easier to use, and so much

I think hg was/is important, to provide competition to git. But I don't really understand all the people arguing that hg is so much easier to use, and so much cleaner. Sure, in the first few years that was true, and there's architecturally better choices (not a mess of scripts, embeddable as library). But from a day to day usage, hg seems worse to me. And that includes the documentation, something that really surprised me after I had to restart using hg a year or so back. The whole thing how hard it is to actually get rid of branches (no, I do not want to merge that branch. Yes, I don't want any central record anymore. No, I don't want to ssh into the remote box. Uh....), really bugged me. So does the need, slowly abating, to activate a lot of random plugins to get functionality that git had for years (pagers, incremental add, staging area, ...). But I very well, and I actually mean that, might just be mind warped by having used git so long and so continually that I just don't see the problems anymore and it just seems easier. I do remember some initial difficulties understanding it, but that was in the quite early days...