Compare Git and Mercurial 
- Users report that Git's "branching and merging" capabilities are superior, allowing for more complex workflows, while Mercurial's "branching model" is simpler but can be limiting for advanced users.
- Reviewers mention that Git's "community support" is extensive, with a wealth of resources and plugins available, whereas Mercurial users note that while support is good, it is not as vast as Git's.
- G2 users highlight that Git's "command line interface" can be daunting for beginners, but once mastered, it offers powerful features; in contrast, users on G2 find Mercurial's interface to be more user-friendly and accessible for newcomers.
- Users say that Git's "performance with large repositories" is often praised, making it a preferred choice for larger projects, while reviewers mention that Mercurial can struggle with performance in similar scenarios.
- Reviewers mention that Git's "integration with CI/CD tools" is robust, making it a favorite among developers, while users report that Mercurial's integrations are fewer, which can hinder workflow automation.
- Users report that Git's "staging area" feature allows for more granular control over commits, which is a significant advantage, while Mercurial's approach to commits is more straightforward but lacks this level of detail.
Git's branching model is the best of the version control systems-- lightweight branches that can be switched and merged at will. It's also very fast and diskspace-light because of the way it stores only incremental changes for each commit. It's easy to move...
The steps to sync any folder are very complex. When we open git bash then we have to write lots of commands to push or commit to the repository.
I like how simple the commands are compared to git. It's a distributed version control software, so it gives you that power. When git is too confusing or overkill, mercurial is very nice. Mercurial also has measures in place that prevent you from shooting...
When I clone a repository, the whole repository gets cloned, only if I needed parts of it Takes too long to clone
Git's branching model is the best of the version control systems-- lightweight branches that can be switched and merged at will. It's also very fast and diskspace-light because of the way it stores only incremental changes for each commit. It's easy to move...
I like how simple the commands are compared to git. It's a distributed version control software, so it gives you that power. When git is too confusing or overkill, mercurial is very nice. Mercurial also has measures in place that prevent you from shooting...
The steps to sync any folder are very complex. When we open git bash then we have to write lots of commands to push or commit to the repository.
When I clone a repository, the whole repository gets cloned, only if I needed parts of it Takes too long to clone
