Back when I evaluated Git vs Mercurial, Git would delete uncommitted changes when changing branch. Mercurial will instead merge the unsaved changes ... I don't

Back when I evaluated Git vs Mercurial, Git would delete uncommitted changes when changing branch. Mercurial will instead merge the unsaved changes ... I don't like either, but Mercurial seemed more forgiving. And it was almost feature complete with Git, but with a slightly easier interface. The biggest factor was however that Mercurial was platform independent, while Git was developed for Linux. One nice feature in Mercurial is that you can make commands return JSON, which makes automation easier. If I was to choose today I would choose something other then Git or Mercurial, or if I had to pick one I would pick Git simply because it's more popular. I don't think either is better or worse, they're the same but different. Do Facebook still use Mercurial!? Last time I checked they had one big monoreop, and has put engineering hours into Mercurial to help make it fast.