[chousuke]

Is it necessary to find something negative in git if you want to highlight a limitation in mercurial? (That can admittedly be worked around with extensions)

The author makes a point that git's more transparent approach makes certain things easy to implement and consistent. To reiterate his example, stashes are just objects in a place where they won't be found by default, but they still work with everything because there's no magic.

The second example shows that git trusts that the user knows best what to do. If you want to reset a branch to a certain commit, git allows you to do it, and because the data model is not hidden git can simply expose the needed operation (reset branch pointer) as is.

For the most part, git has neat porcelains for most operations nowadays, but the UI is sometimes a bit weird because it started off as nothing more than a set of tools to manipulate a DAG of content on disk. In my view this ended up becoming one of its strong points in comparison to other DVCS.

[CJefferson]

The title of the post was "The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial". This implies to me that the article is about one, clear difference, which is the main distinction between the two.

Had the post been called "An advantage of git over mercurial", I would have placed a much lower requirement.