Git was developed by kernel hackers for kernel hackers, and it really feels like it from an interface perspective. Git commands are baroque and arcane, and it's a pain in the ass.
Hg, on the other hand, was developed from a perspective of "let's make a distributed version of Subversion", which resulted in a much more user-friendly set of commands. It feels like using SVN, only with all the benefits of DVCS, which is a much better workflow for me because I came from an SVN background before I started using any DVCS.
It's also changeset-based rather than snapshot-based, which I find easier to deal with (again, because I come from an SVN background). It's also nice having revision numbers in addition to the hashes.
Oh, and I don't have to deal with staging-related headaches when working with hg, unlike git.
Comments
Git was developed by kernel hackers for kernel hackers, and it really feels like it from an interface perspective. Git commands are baroque and arcane, and it's a pain in the ass.
Hg, on the other hand, was developed from a perspective of "let's make a distributed version of Subversion", which resulted in a much more user-friendly set of commands. It feels like using SVN, only with all the benefits of DVCS, which is a much better workflow for me because I came from an SVN background before I started using any DVCS.
It's also changeset-based rather than snapshot-based, which I find easier to deal with (again, because I come from an SVN background). It's also nice having revision numbers in addition to the hashes.
Oh, and I don't have to deal with staging-related headaches when working with hg, unlike git.