To be fair I think there are a multitude of ways in which git is less sucky than hg:
- multiple binaries - significantly more modular design framework - doesn't assume the user is an idiot (which is probably why so many people have problems with it) - there are plenty of things of *daily use* in git that are ridiculously difficult in hg (branch stuff, mostly) But for the use of a few nerds, where usually only ~2 people are regular committers, either will do just fine. Chris On 13 February 2013 07:56, Jens Nyberg <jens.nyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/2/13 Chris Down <ch...@chrisdown.name>: > > Care to give some examples of where git sucks more than hg? I've found it > > particularly un-sucky, but non-intuitive in places. > > > > People who can not grasp git thinks it's bad, it's that simple. Irony > of it all is that it is actually a very simple design that is both > fast, reliable and annoyingly easy to work with. Sure we could cope > without all that syntactic sugar (a suckless frontend anyone?) but > that is not the fault in design but simply the tools which has way to > much options in order to please everyone and their mother. > > > On 13 February 2013 07:28, Sam Watkins <s...@nipl.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:25:18AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote: > >> > I am proposing a migration of all mercurial to git repositories. > >> > >> I've been working with git lately, trying to do some unusual things, > >> and I need to say this is one of the least suckless pieces of software > >> I've ever worked with. It's complex, obscure, inconsistent, quirky... > >> > >> You migrated from hg to git, because *git* sucks less??? Say WHAT?! > >> > > > >