3 ms·

Mercurial beats Git hands down across the board for me. I've worked on so many projects where the initial development was tossed into Git and then the devs spen

Mercurial beats Git hands down across the board for me. I've worked on so many projects where the initial development was tossed into Git and then the devs spend three days trying to get their codebases synced and each using a different tool which may or may not implement the core commands of Git. Mercurial? Works everywhere much more simply, even ties into .NET with VisualHG and gives a better version/branch management than TFS. And doesn't mismanage disk space like Git. Mercurial + BitBucket is the cleanest, fastest way I have right now for adding devs to new projects. I avoid Git because so few people (ESPECIALLY those who have only used Git) understand source control well enough not to make a mess of it.

erikb 12y ago
> each using a different tool which may or may not implement the core commands of Git That's really one of the core problems of using git and why it's not for everyone. If you want a tool to do your job then git won't make you happy. Using the core tools and learning how it works _inside_ is the only way to make it work efficiently. If you want/need a bike (something easy like svn), use a bike. If you want/need to use an air plane (git) you need to learn how to fly and that costs a lot of time. Putting something on the plane to make it look like a bike (a tool that may or may not enable all of git but probably not) won't suffice in either case.