4 ms·

Mind to explain why?

• mikece 7y ago
  It was easier to learn, shell integration with Windows existed (TortiseHg), help files were more gentle to newbies. Ultimately, I realize that Git "won" more because of Github than any specifically outstanding merits that Git itself had; if BitBucket had delivered what GitHub did in Hg before GitHub, I think we would all be Hg users right now.
  • gus_massa 7y ago
    Most of the horror stories with git are when people try to do crazy rebases. If you minimize the number of rebases, it is fine. (And in case you need to make some crazy rebase, remember to use tags to keep alive the old version in case it is necessary to undo all the mess.) I use TortoiseGit https://tortoisegit.org/ https://tortoisegit.org/ 99% of the time, it's very similar to TortoiseHg.
    • dagenix 7y ago
      git reflog can be used to restore the last good commit before a rebase gone wrong. It's more of a pain to use that just resetting to a tag, but, it's a great safety net.
  • WorldMaker 7y ago
    Bitbucket and GitHub had feature parity for much of the early years. The performance arguments (though some of them were rather spurious) and the network effects of the Linux team itself seem more critical for git winning than GitHub. (As a devout darcs user at the time, I watched from the bleachers of that fight.)