3 ms·
That's not a fair comparison. Mercurial is better than git in certain aspects (mainly command line experience) but git by itself is a solid content tracker. It
by solutionyogi 14y ago
That's not a fair comparison. Mercurial is better than git in certain aspects (mainly command line experience) but git by itself is a solid content tracker. It has an extremely simple data model and it's rock solid. As someone else said in this thread, git has no separate notion of 'branch', 'tag' like Mercurial. In a way, git is actually like PostgreSQL, a solid piece of software which you can trust.
- alwillis 14y agoIt's more than just command line stuff; Google did an extensive comparison that more people should look at: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
- harshreality 14y agoThat comparison is over 4 years old. Google code now supports git, and most of the arguments against git are either spurious ("git history isn't sacred!")[1] or have been improved since then (better windows support, smart http protocol, single user-visible binary, etc.). [1] dvcs history locally should not be sacred, because rewriting experimental branches is necessary for clarity and to avoid polluting the main repository branches. dvcs history on a central repo can be made sacred with git by disabling non-ff commits and disabling deletes.