On 27/10/2010 22:33, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
Well, Mercurial offers much less opportunities to shoot oneself in the foot and is much easier to use. This is especially true if you come from another VCS like SVN: you can use the same commands for the same results on the local repository and you only need to learn a couple of commands for syncing. Git uses different commands for everything (this is actually a stated design goal: try to make things as different from CVS as possible!)The only true advantage that Git has over Mercurial is the staging area, and even that is a two edged sword: IMO it should not be enabled by default since it helps people to lose data. And the same functionality can be emulated (and superseded) in Mercurial with record and mq anyway.
But isn't the staging area similar, if not identical to SVN? I mean, in svn you also have to do a command "svn add" to add new files to the "sandbox". They won't get commit otherwise, right?
(note: im somewhat familiar with SVN and Git, but not with Mercurial) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
