3 ms·

I keep seeing people talk about all the good of hg over git, but I haven't seen anything that really sets it apart. If you were doing a sales pitch, what would

I keep seeing people talk about all the good of hg over git, but I haven't seen anything that really sets it apart. If you were doing a sales pitch, what would you show that hg has over git? What are some specific plugins that ease your development or release process? What are some real-world advantages of the hg patch-queue over how git handles pulls? I'm honestly curious. I just haven't seen anything to sell me on why hg is so much better than git (or even the other way around).

owenmarshall 15y ago
From the perspective of a longtime hg user who switched jobs and is now in git land: hg is easier to pick up and start using than git. git lets you do incredible things with your tree, things that hg forbids or makes impossible. But git also lets you make big mistakes, and isn't very nice about helping you fix them. hg, on the other hand, has a much nicer learning curve. As an example, try to forget everything you know about version control and type `hg help push` and `git help push`. Which one would you be able to parse? Personally, when I read "The format of a <refspec> parameter is an optional plus +, followed by the source ref <src>, followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref <dst>", I want to punch a baby. At the end of the day, if I want to transition a team away from SVN onto a DVCS, I'd pick hg -- just because it lets a team Get Shit Done without spending a ton of time learning a new VCS. But if I'm starting my own project? I'd pick git in a heartbeat.
jhonnycano 15y ago
Besides the simplicity when starting to use a DVCS, i would add the simplicity for setting up a server (At least on Windows). There are a lot of organizations which need a centralized repo. And setting up mercurial for serving is a breeze. That's my 2 cents.

3 ms·

I keep seeing people talk about all the good of hg over git, but I haven't seen anything that really sets it apart. If you were doing a sales pitch, what would

by jlogsdon 15y ago

owenmarshall 15y ago
From the perspective of a longtime hg user who switched jobs and is now in git land: hg is easier to pick up and start using than git. git lets you do incredible things with your tree, things that hg forbids or makes impossible. But git also lets you make big mistakes, and isn't very nice about helping you fix them. hg, on the other hand, has a much nicer learning curve. As an example, try to forget everything you know about version control and type `hg help push` and `git help push`. Which one would you be able to parse? Personally, when I read "The format of a <refspec> parameter is an optional plus +, followed by the source ref <src>, followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref <dst>", I want to punch a baby. At the end of the day, if I want to transition a team away from SVN onto a DVCS, I'd pick hg -- just because it lets a team Get Shit Done without spending a ton of time learning a new VCS. But if I'm starting my own project? I'd pick git in a heartbeat.
jhonnycano 15y ago
Besides the simplicity when starting to use a DVCS, i would add the simplicity for setting up a server (At least on Windows). There are a lot of organizations which need a centralized repo. And setting up mercurial for serving is a breeze. That's my 2 cents.