I think “subtly superior” is not a given, here. Git has better performance for a lot of users in a lot of use cases. Git is certainly not always better-perform

I think “subtly superior” is not a given, here. Git has better performance for a lot of users in a lot of use cases. Git is certainly not always better-performing than Mercurial, but it is often better performing, and the performance differences have varied at different points in time. Some parts of Mercurial struck me as obviously better than Git, like the overall CLI UX, but some of the differences just seem like differences that come with tradeoffs. Mercurial is somewhat more opinionated about branches and allows some weird scenarios like “branches with multiple heads”, whereas in Git, a branch is just a label for one of the heads in the first place. Git’s index seems to trip up a lot of beginners, but as a long-time Git user, I don’t know how I could live without it. I can see why people say “subtly superior”, but I think the superiority is overstated. The CLI UX is the only part where it seems like Mercurial has a clear advantage (and maybe better support for large files).