This is precisely the reason I couldn't force myself to use Git. The UI of Mercurial is so much more consistent and intuitive. I find it easier for non-technical people in the company to share files.
I find mercurial is a little easier but a mouse could starve on the difference.
That having been said, while I wish git were easier, I can cope with it. I can't cope with both git and mercurial. I haven't got the brain capacity to remember how to use both of them without them blurring together. I want to standardize on one or the other. And once I ask which to standardize on, git wins by simple market share. That's why I ended up choosing it over mercurial.
I've always wanted to use Mercurial; I'd always found its user interface to be an improvement over git; as if it shipped with a great "porcelain" by default. I respect its ability to leak fewer implementation details while still offering plenty of power.
But I kept using git for all my projects, and GitHub with it.
For many developers the only reason we use git is github. I for one much prefer mercurial but to collaborate with others (and now for my job) github is a de facto standard.
Git is horrible to use. Few people like it, most only tolerate it. Regardless of how you feel about git, there's plenty of literature regarding how awful the git user experience is.
Mercurial's greater modularity also has made it easier to implement improvements for monorepos, although personally that's less important to me.
Github won, so we're all forced to use git now, but mercurial is really a simpler interface and a more straightforward mental model.
reply