If you were doing a sales pitch, what would you show that hg has over git? What are some specific plugins that ease your development or release process? What are some real-world advantages of the hg patch-queue over how git handles pulls?
I'm honestly curious. I just haven't seen anything to sell me on why hg is so much better than git (or even the other way around).
git lets you do incredible things with your tree, things that hg forbids or makes impossible. But git also lets you make big mistakes, and isn't very nice about helping you fix them.
hg, on the other hand, has a much nicer learning curve. As an example, try to forget everything you know about version control and type `hg help push` and `git help push`.
Which one would you be able to parse? Personally, when I read "The format of a <refspec> parameter is an optional plus +, followed by the source ref <src>, followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref <dst>", I want to punch a baby.
At the end of the day, if I want to transition a team away from SVN onto a DVCS, I'd pick hg -- just because it lets a team Get Shit Done without spending a ton of time learning a new VCS. But if I'm starting my own project? I'd pick git in a heartbeat.
Nowadays the choice between git and mercurial comes down mostly to preferring on the user interface over another.
My co-workers use Guilt.
We had published patch-queues in another department I worked for, and they were one of the reasons they switched to git instead.
I've never warmed up to patch-queues, but I haven't really tried to use them seriously.
If bookmarks are too lightweight for something (say you have an experimental branch that you want to branch on-top of) patch queues are amazing.
Not to mention their ease of use!!
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/managing-change-with-mercuri...