I haven't used hg enough to have an opinion on it, despite several attempts... Problem is I learn bottom up, and I just haven't been able to "think in mercurial" the way I can "think in git".
I find it interesting that what git calls a commit is actually a revision (or checkpoint, snapshot, point-in-time) and what mercurial calls a revision is actually a commit (or patch, delta, changeset).
I think a lot of people think in terms of patches/changesets and I suspect (still haven't gotten far enough to confirm) hg is a toolbox for managing them in a similar way to how git is a toolbox for manipulating its snapshot based DAG.
I find it interesting that what git calls a commit is actually a revision (or checkpoint, snapshot, point-in-time) and what mercurial calls a revision is actually a commit (or patch, delta, changeset).
I think a lot of people think in terms of patches/changesets and I suspect (still haven't gotten far enough to confirm) hg is a toolbox for managing them in a similar way to how git is a toolbox for manipulating its snapshot based DAG.