[mixmastamyk]

Sounds like a false dilemma. Mercurial is here now, is powerful enough for a majority of users, is easy to use, and has an introductory book as well. After reading it and Spolsky's site, I picked it up in a few hours.

I think git is a good fit for people who find version control theory interesting, a endeavor in itself, or have complex workflows. For the rest of us, who simply need to work together (sometimes offline) with multiple synced backups, the complexity of git is too much.

Hg, for its flaws, keeps the simple things simple. I think the constant push from above to use git is a disservice, and I wonder if there will be a backlash at some point.

[spacemanaki]

I specifically wasn't comparing Git to Mercurial, and noted so in my comment, mostly because I don't have any real experience with it. It certainly might be easier to use than Git, I don't actually know. I also don't know how many people who bemoan Git's complexity and learning curve have tried Mercurial, or even used any version control, and how many are migrating from SVN or CVS.

[etanol]

I use them both and I can say that Mercurial is way easier to learn and use than Git. Obviously, Mercurial has less features but, is there currently any DVCS system that has more features than Git?

The funny thing about Mercurial and Git is that they build on top of the same core concepts:

http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts

[Domenic_S]

hg is leaps and bounds simpler than git. I came from a long svn background and picked up hg in about a day.

hg to git took several weeks, and I'm still learning.

I prefer git's handling of branches; hg never deletes a branch, just "closes" it, so you're left with a lot of mess if you do a great deal of branching. Other than that, I prefer hg.