[ubernostrum]

hg's command-line interface is far better organized, yes, at least in the sense that it appears to have been organized rather than organically slapped together and papered over with "well it'd make sense if only you understood more about it".

Blaming users for not understanding a bad interface is one of the classic mistakes.

[greggman]

hg's original workflow didn't encourage git style branches at all nor did it have any kind of stage IIRC. They've since been optionally added. Is that workflow in hg more intuitive or is only its far less powerful original workflow more intuitive?

It took me a while make the mental jump from svn style branches to git style and from no stage to having a stage but I'd never want to go back now that I understand them.

[ubernostrum]

This is not about workflow (though I do prefer hg's model of multiple types of branch-like constructs). This is about the command-line interface used to interact with it. Where git overloads commands (the same command can do vastly different things depending on options or context), or cannot make up its mind whether to implement functionality through top-level commands or flags to existing commands, hg is much more consistent in having a set of commands whose names match the operations they perform and are not overloaded with multiple contextual meanings.