I concur to that. I find Hg branching model messy: there are clones, named branches, bookmarks and anonymous branches. They all have different features in term

I concur to that. I find Hg branching model messy: there are clones, named branches, bookmarks and anonymous branches. They all have different features in term of how you can share them, etc... Also, I find comparing branches (through log, diff, etc...) a bit painful, especially because of inconsistencies between naming in hg - git naming is less user friendly, but much more consistent. IOW, Git complexity comes from a f*cked-up UI, but hg simplicity is only superficial. Any semi-advanced usage in hg requires queues, a lot of plugins, etc... whereas git supports all that out of the box. Some simplicity in hg is also seriously broken - the "simple" version naming is a very bad idea in DVCS. Inevitably, different people will refer to the same revision (r1234) which is in fact a different revision because they are relative to different repositories. Merging is also not that great in hg: I really miss git index when I need to resolve conflict. But I have a strong dislike for kdiff3 and that sort of tools.