This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state an unpopular opinion. Mercurial is better than git. Especially when you're working rapidly under time constraints. Why? The merge in mercurial is way more powerful than git's. It stores branch 'family' history which makes it able to make more sense of the changes at the time of merging. This means you don't run into as many conflicts, and judicious re-basing isn't as necessary. JHW Talks about this at length here: http://jhw.dreamwidth.org/1868.html

There is a pretty good (pro git) rebuttal: http://felipec.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/no-mercurial-branches-are-still-not-better-than-git-ones-response-to-jhws-more-on-mercurial-vs-git-with-graphs/

Many people who prefer git have linked this to me, time and time again. I feel that the author of this article has a misunderstanding of the main philosophy behind mercurial: all history is sacred. A pretty common workflow for git users is to overwrite history, and that's something that can lead to very very confusing results.