Having used both extensively, Git at one job, HG at the next, now Git again, I mostly have this to say: Both tools lack polish. The biggest piece of mis-infor

Having used both extensively, Git at one job, HG at the next, now Git again, I mostly have this to say: Both tools lack polish. The biggest piece of mis-information I'd like to clear up is that often times a user new to either of these makes a few mistakes and then the cold hand of death grabs them and they're certain they lost work. You never really do. In Mercurial, the permanent nature of named branches and in Git the reflog both serve you well. Seek help in such a case, because if you think you lost work, you almost certainly didn't. Edit: Also, if you're using HG and not using patch queues, you're doing it wrong. Just sayin'