3 ms·
Mercurial works more or less the same way, and yet I find mercurial UI much simpler. The main difference, I think, is that mercurial has stronger opinions on h
by GuB-42 6y ago
Mercurial works more or less the same way, and yet I find mercurial UI much simpler.
The main difference, I think, is that mercurial has stronger opinions on how you should manage your repository and hides everything that doesn't fit its views behind extensions.
Really, I don't understand how git managed to become so popular. It is really good and I like it a lot but it really takes time getting used to. I screwed up a lot before getting competent with it, and I still screw up from time to time. It didn't happen with cvs, svn and mercurial.
It makes me think of Perl. Powerful and messy, I like if for the same reason I like git. But while Perl is on the way down, progressively replaced by cleaner, more opinionated alternatives, git is becoming a de-facto standard.
- addicted 6y agoI’ve always believed that it was GitHub that allowed git to win out. In addition to that, I suspect it was the very fact that Mercurial had more features, specifically an in built web server that allowed you to easily share your repo, led to GitHub being created with git and not mercurial. The way I look at it, Mercurial made it extremely easy to self host a repo. So there was no need for a 3rd party centralized service to share your mercurial repo. That wasn’t the case for git, so something like GitHub was needed. But the centralization in GitHub also allowed them to add more social features, which allowed git to spread more widely.