> Then it turns out that instead of branches I should have been using "bookmarks"? But which to use when? We've been using Mercurial branches for more than a d

> Then it turns out that instead of branches I should have been using "bookmarks"? But which to use when? We've been using Mercurial branches for more than a decade like Git branches. What specific problems did you have with Mercurial branches? I've never used bookmarks with Mercurial. > I could never figure out how to clean up properly if I made a mistake Interesting because that's my biggest problem with Git. In Mercurial, it's just about learning the meaning of the distinct terms like "rollback", "revert" and "backout". In Git, you must know the many cryptic variants of "git reset" instead. > Simpler than a DAG with pointers? Sure. I don't how Git's DAG different than Mercurial DAG from a user's point of view. In my opinion, Git's mutable by default semantics and staging area adds unnecessary complexity for a beginner. That's what I mean by simpler. > If I remember correctly you even needed to install some kind of external plugin just to do simple rebasing / branch cleanup. They're all built-in but opt-in features called "internal extensions". Maybe, you're referring to early versions of Mercurial from 15 years ago or so when they were external. > Now's the part where you tell me I'm doing it wrong, shouldn't be rebasing etc I use history editing, MQ, rebase daily. I find them handy. But they can be confusing for beginners, so I also understand why they're disabled by default. > and the constant claims that it's somehow objectively "better" but misunderstood get really boring. It's impossible to compare two DVCS's objectively other than performance for certain scenarios. But, as a person who uses both daily, I find Mercurial much easier to use, yes.