on Mon Mar 19 2012, Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
I've had numerous problems with git, including getting my local git repo into a state where it would neither push to nor pull from the remote repo. On the other hand, I've had no problems with Mercurial, even though I've used it on more projects, with more branching and merging.
In one case, I was having such difficulty with git that I used hg-git to import my git repo into mercurial, so I could deal with the branches and merges in a sane fashion, then exported back to git.
All my problems basically boil down to one thing though: the user interface (command line) to git doesn't map cleanly to the way I think about stuff, or the operations I wish to do, whereas the user interface for mercurial does. For me, mercurial is intuitive, whereas git is not, in a big way.
But for every story like that, there's an opposite one from the other community. For example, I find Mercurial's branch model completely insane. Multiple heads on a branch? What on earth were they thinking?! So on one project I used git-Hg to make the transition in the other direction. But seriously, if I thought Hg was winning in the DVCS marketplace I would choose it over Git, even though I find it difficult to use and ugly to think about. That's easy for me to say, I know. I'm just lucky that I perceive the marketplace winner to be the tool I like better. Oh, and please don't think me a Git zealot. There are some things about the design I quite disagree with, and the UI certainly can be harder to grasp than necessary. More than a little, that's the community's fault for not explaining Git well. But that situation is improving... -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com