> It's a valid comparison for his point that Mercurial is much more reliable for his workflows than git To me it reads as a warning that Mercurial repos are pr

> It's a valid comparison for his point that Mercurial is much more reliable for his workflows than git To me it reads as a warning that Mercurial repos are prone to being screwed up even if the user has over a decade of experience avoiding Mercurial's traps while with Git only bold inexperienced users can screw up repos in a similar matter.