Git vs. Mercurial blog.timokoola.com

@tkoola I was subversion user, tried git but didn't like it all - usability pretty close to zero, intended to start using Mercurial but before I managed to get the time to play with it everybody was using git. Now uses git every stay, still think usability is below what should be expected.

@tkoola @jemostrom I was happy with Subversion, then chose Mercurial for a while but I cannot tolerate Git - 1. it's overly complex for most scenarios that aren't the Linux kernel, 2. because of that many people get into a mess, 3. the Windows implementation is far from elegant, 4. the negativity in the name is a problem for me.

So, what do I do? I use Fossil - all the good bits of Subversion but with an elegant, modern, distributed design in one neat executable. It makes me happy.

@a_seagull_story @jemostrom interesting! I gave up at some point, probably when everything moved over to github and just introduced Git to my toolbox. For years I used a very limited set of commands to do the necessary bits but last year I decided to dig deeper and try to be at least moderately advanced user of it. Only genuine advantage of it comes in moderately advanced territory (staged commits, branching/merging)

@a_seagull_story 1. - yep, 2 - yes, seen this in a professional setting (about 20 people and several days before being back to normal), 3 - that part I can't say anything about, 4 - never thought about that.

For me it's git ... this is what the students use and I need to be able to interact with their repos and help/comment on git.