|
I'm an early git contributor and long time user. At the time I picked it up, I was following and using hg as well. I found git easier to learn and use. Git has just a few basic concepts underlying how it works. Once I learned blobs, trees, commits, the index, and references (branches, tags, reflog, etc), I understood the model. It wasn't hard to grok a local vs remote repo, how history was a dag, and so forth. From there, I realized all the crazy commands, the baroque UI, these were all just ways of manipulating those objects in various ways. I could always figure out how to make git do what I wanted. It never fought me or tried to tell me I couldn't do something. hg, by contrast, I felt was always trying to hold my hand. Its model was harder to understand. It required me to adapt to its workflow, instead of allowing me to adapt it to mine. It was generally much less flexible. I found everything about git more Unix-philosophy like. I understand completely if you don't want to think about your VCS and just want it to record your changes and otherwise get out of your way, but I wanted a more flexible and powerful tool. |