Mercurial otoh was a joy to use, never surprised me - it just worked. I think github is the only reason git won. Ah well, water under the bridge...
P.S.: hginit rules.
It's very annoying that git became more popular, it's such a disaster from the usability point of view.
Can you provide a single example of what you think is the absolute worst userflow that git provides for a basic everyday feature? I'd like to understand why some people repeatedly make a mountain out of a molehill regarding git's user experience.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/git?tab=Votes
This is not the mark of good interface design. The ones I look up every single time off the top of my head are:
# undo commit
git reset --soft HEAD~1
# unstage
# was git reset HEAD --
git restore --staged
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2003505
nuke = "!f() { git branch -D $1 && git push --delete origin $1; };f"
A few times I tried the rebase workflow geeks are always pushing. They are never around when disaster strikes, so I don't bother any more. At least merge+squash works every time.
Notice that commands like git status tell you what commands to run to fix issues; the typical user would never guess. Hg wasn't perfect but it had a lot fewer of these issues.
I don't understand this sort of comment at all. What's so hard about git?
You clone a repository, you checkout a branch, you pull changes to that branch from the remote server, you commit a change to your local repository, you push those changes to a remote server.
What's so hard to get?
It's even more absurd when people try to claim that mercurial is so clear while criticising git for being unintelligible, when mercurial follows the exact same patterns but had to confuse people by leaving basic features like stashing as an afterthought to be implemented with ad-hoc extensions.