4 ms·

> Why hasn't someone written new porcelain that makes git as intuitive as mercurial, subversion, etc? I've used svn and git extensively, but after getting very

> Why hasn't someone written new porcelain that makes git as intuitive as mercurial, subversion, etc? I've used svn and git extensively, but after getting very used to git, i tried working on a project that used mercurial and walked away completely confused by how it works. With "branches" being completely different beasts that i couldn't understand and unsure when it was appropriate to use bookmarks instead. It completely baffles me that people find it better than git's super straightforward dag-of-snapshots model and I reject the idea that it is simpler or more intuitive.

jcranmer 4y ago
If you're coming from git, this is what you need to do to understand Mercurial: don't worry about Mercurial's branches, ever. Whenever you want to use the term 'branch' from git, translate it to 'bookmark'. Mercurial's branches correspond more directly to svn's branches--they're immutable properties of a revision--but it's not a terribly useful property, and you can forget about them entirely and be perfectly productive. Although note that unlike git, you don't need to use Mercurial's bookmarks since Mercurial is perfectly happen to let commits sit around without having names pointing to them.