Hacker News Reader

> you can't easily have local branches [2] > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8995598/can-i-mark-a-bran...

I don't get it. As a citation for your assertion that you can't easily have local branches, you link to a StackOverflow question for which the accepted answer explains how to easily have local branches.

What were you trying to say with that link?

I'm not going to answer your question because I feel like what I said (not tried to say, but said) was obvious, but I will point out that things like this kinda throw a wrench into the whole "hg's UI is better than git" don't ya think?

As stated by the documentation, those numbers are purely a convenience feature for when you don't want to give the actual revision hash to a command. The latter is what you have to do in git anyway.

Exactly. Git has one way to refer to commits: hashes. Mercurial has two: hashes and revision numbers. If you don't like revision numbers, ignore them, and you're in exactly the same position as with Git.

> What does hg have that makes it better than git that you should give up git?

Better user experience out of the box for Windows shops.

This might change with Microsoft's adoption of git for TFS, but you won't find many appraisals for git at my workplace. Many people still miss hg.

You mean tortoiseHG? There's tortoisegit as well. And the first Windows-only proprietary client I could find supports both systems (Smartgithg: http://www.syntevo.com/smartgithg/)

No, I mean the whole experience.

Mercurial being Python based has less UNIX feeling than Git on its workflow experience.

Plus there are better plugins for Visual Studio integration available then for Git.

Isn't git built into Visual Studio?

If you have the 2013 version.

The place I'm currently working is (sadly) a Windows shop, and we've never had any issues using msys-git.

Some of us use TortiseGit for logs, diffs, etc (we used to use TortiseSVN pretty much exclusively before we moved)

>My biggest issues with hg are that hg's revision numbers aren't synchronized across instances, they are local only[1] making them kind of useless, you can't easily have local branches[2], and it stores changesets instead of objects.

Nope. Revision numbers are just a convenience when you're working locally in a repo. Just like Git, each commit is uniquely identified using a SHA hash.

No again on the local branches. Again, Mercurial is even more flexible when it comes to branching that Git is: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-me....