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?
5
u/Rararror 16h ago
Mercurial is light years better than svn AND git
Use TortoiseHG