3 ms·

I'm currently considering switching from Darcs to Mercurial or possibly Git. I've had problems with Darcs taking vast amounts of time to commit larger files and

• gcv 19y ago
  Both git and hg are very nice, you will not go wrong with either one. If Windows support in the near future is a priority, you should probably use Mercurial. It works well today. The Windows port of git is coming along, but I don't know how long it'll take to reach first-class citizen status. That said, if you don't need to deal with Windows, I suggest using git. It has a more power-user feel to it than Mercurial, and it has a few spectacular features I can't live without: rebase, stash, and the git-svn bridge. I'm also rather fond of git's lightweight branch mechanism. I know hg supports a variant of rebase and stash using the Transplant and Queues extensions, but the last time I looked at hg svn, it wasn't ready for use. Also, when you read about git, you'll hear a lot of first-time users complaining about "the index." Just remember to think of it as a staging area for commits, and you'll be fine. It was a bit confusing at first, but then I realized that I like using it for making granular commits and diff checking.