3 ms·
You said you haven't used Mercurial much to really compare, and then you compared, and said git is more flexible, and the CLI difference are negligible. So I th
by wyuenho 14y ago
You said you haven't used Mercurial much to really compare, and then you compared, and said git is more flexible, and the CLI difference are negligible. So I think you definitely have a bias towards git.
I use Mercurial and Git every day, and I can tell you there's a marked difference between the usability of Mercurial and Git. Git would become totally unusable if it weren't for stackoverflow and google, while I can figure everything out just from Mercurial's short and sweet help manuals.
- npsimons 14y agoI admit I'm biased towards git; but, unlike the original question poster, I can link to articles backing up my assessment that the UX differences between Git and Mercurial are negligible at best, and most likely any perceived differences are highly subjective.
- alwillis 14y agoActually, the UX differences aren't negligible; from Google's assessment of Mercurial and Git. Complexity has a cost in terms of time, mistakes made, training, that can be quantified. From Google's assessment of Mercurial and Git: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis Learning Curve. Git has a steeper learning curve than Mercurial due to a number of factors. Git has more commands and options, the volume of which can be intimidating to new users. Mercurial's documentation tends to be more complete and easier for novices to read. Mercurial's terminology and commands are also a closer to Subversion and CVS, making it familiar to people migrating from those systems.