I recently asked a very similar question and I think the answers are relevant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138718 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=

I recently asked a very similar question and I think the answers are relevant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138718 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138718 Quoting from one of the comments there: > Hg, overall, seems a bit more user friendly for > doing the run-of-the-mill things such as branching, > merging, fetching code, delivering patches, etc. I > find it more pleasant to use without knowing much > about the internals. This makes it also easier to > explain to people that used SVN etc. > Git has a lot of 'magical command line switches', > and (at least used to be) documented qutie sparsely. > So you'll probably query google on how to get out of > seemingly simple situations. On the other hand, Git > allows a guru to do a lot of stuff such as re-ordering > history to make nicer patches. Once you master how > things work, these can be very useful. (from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138881 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138881)