When we first switched from git to hg internally I was real cranky. Git was the clear industry winner, and hg was adding a whole bunch of churn for no good reas

When we first switched from git to hg internally I was real cranky. Git was the clear industry winner, and hg was adding a whole bunch of churn for no good reason. Now, hg is amazing and when I leave I will be extremely sad to go back to git. The UX is well thought out, with commands mapping to operations (how do you undo a commit? hg uncommit vs git playing around with the reflog). Amending deep commits is pretty good -- it's still tricky and absorb works on some pretty limited heuristics. But the merge tooling is pretty good around moving around in a stack, and the general UX over interacting with the stack is way better: hg histedit edits history, while hg rebase moves the stack around.