Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spacemanaki 5104 days ago
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.
2 comments
etanol 5104 days ago
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

link
Domenic_S 5104 days ago
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.

link