I understand why you see it that way. +1 to the "learning curve is not the only factor". But a few remarks: > There's a nice little ding against git here for

I understand why you see it that way. +1 to the "learning curve is not the only factor". But a few remarks: > There's a nice little ding against git here for actually listing its options in the synopsis, which is standard behavior for unix utilities, unlike hg which just says `[OPTION]...`. Sorry Robert, but git definitely wins that one. I'm not so sure about that. I think i have seen both pretty often. Example: man sed. I understood his point there: The git-way of the presentation makes it harder to understand the basic structure of the command, which is an issue given the multiple forms they can have. > The actual summary of both commands, which is the very first real line of text you see in the help on both, is as follows: ... True with the first line, not necessarily true with what is the real description/summary here. Gits placement is ambiguous (that line is called name). > But he doesn't mind terminology used in `hg update`, such as "working directory" or "changeset Well, both words are used in other places than mercurial, they are the basic words for what they are...