[w0rd-driven]

From SVN I cut my teeth on Hg/Mercurial, which had a much simpler barrier to entry and feels more user friendly. Mercurial and git solve the same basic underlying problem, distributed repositories, but in the "next gen vcs war" (if that was even a thing), git won out by a huge landslide largely due to a little site called Github.

As I've dived into the nitty gritty of both, I find it seems you can get more out of git because it just exposes those internal structures unabashedly. I believe it's those guts that make git as powerful or as hard as it currently is on UX. To use a loose analogy, git feels like man pages: rocket science speak but incredibly dense whereas Mercurial is like a very lightweight howto site. It's easier to transition to Mercurial but once you find you need to dive deep, it's just about as complex as git. Git seems to throw you in the deep end immediately which I do think is more of a blessing than a curse but there are times when it doesn't quite feel that way.

[y4mi]

you clearly never had to support developers that need to work with a basic git-flow and get merge conflicts because they're unable to figure out why they shouldn't do the same change in separate branches. Or, if they do, how to resolve that conflict themselves.

[da_chicken]

To be fair, these are the same developers who moved files and renamed folders in SVN without using "svn mv".