> I don't think being too good is the reason it didn't beat git. I think Mercurial didn't beat git because it's only marginally better. I don't really agree. M

> I don't think being too good is the reason it didn't beat git. I think Mercurial didn't beat git because it's only marginally better. I don't really agree. Mercurial was missing some critical features that were left as an afterthought, like support for stashing. It takes some rose-tainted glasses to spin Mercurial as being an all-good,no-bad tool and Git the exact opposite.