3 ms·
Mercurial is much more straightforward to work with for most common workflows (but can still be extended for other, less common, workflows). I found that I can
by Beltalowda 5y ago
Mercurial is much more straightforward to work with for most common workflows (but can still be extended for other, less common, workflows). I found that I can use mercurial effectively just by reading the built-in help. With git ... not so much.
Not that the documentation on git is bad necessarily, there's just so much of it. A simple demonstration of this might be something like:
% git help commit | wc -l
622
% hg help commit | wc -l
59
% hg help commit -v | wc -l
98
And some of the CLI syntax is rather arcane, too.
It's been years since I last used mercurial, so I'd have to go back to find more specific examples, but I struggled a lot more getting started with git than with mercurial.
- taeric 5y agoIt's odd, to me, as I remember not being able to figure out mercurial back in the day. Guessing I had just already made the mental shift to git? That said, size of manual doesn't seem compelling. The men page for ls, as an example, would make that seem a very tough command to use.
- Beltalowda 5y agoSome people have said they found git more intuitive and easier; its not something objective. > That said, size of manual doesn't seem compelling. The men page for ls, as an example, would make that seem a very tough command to use. Sure; it's just indicative of complexity, and therefore, ease-of-use.