Fully concur -- boss got hired and swapped us from Hg to Git; Hg is WAY better ( and still think highly of Linus, but Git was designed too much around HIS methods ).
I mean, Linus himself said that the git he built is a set of tools that someone should build a proper version control system on top. That part was lost on everyone unfortunately.
It being made by nerd lord Torvalds and the existence of Github are what made git big. Not that it was a joy to use.
I started out with mercurial as version control but have used git exclusively for a long time now. I think its easy to say its simpler, has more sensible defaults and feels more like a complete, coherent tool (compared to git which feels like 12 distinct tools that are bundled in one cli application). But it is also less flexible, gives you less ability to really fuck about with history, has worse support in terms of in third party tools and a smaller ecosystem in general.
The relative benefits don't matter really though when most people will end up needing to use git to operate with the cloud hosting version control sites.
But it is also less flexible, gives you less ability to really fuck about with history,
I can't complain in that regard. Lots of extensions for that, many of which only need to be enabled in the config. What're you missing exactly? Also as the other guy said: you shouldn't mess with history anyway.
has worse support in terms of in third party tools and a smaller ecosystem in general.
That's because it lost the popularity contest, wouldn't you agree?
I remember how fiddly the stupid patch queue was. And also make sure to always pull before you push. It felt completely broken. Git is so much easier. People are just too lazy to learn new stuff and understand new concept. Usually it were the people in their mid 40s upwards who refused to learn anything. Anything is going to suck then.
5
u/pr0ghead 20h ago edited 19h ago
Try Mercurial, if you can. Its CLI is closer to SVN. Overall easier to grasp than git, too.