Compare Mercurial and Subversion 
- Users report that Mercurial excels in ease of setup, with a score of 9.1, making it a preferred choice for small businesses looking for a quick implementation. In contrast, Subversion's setup ease is rated at 7.9, which some reviewers find less straightforward.
- Reviewers mention that Mercurial's user interface is more intuitive, contributing to its higher ease of use rating of 8.8 compared to Subversion's 8.0. Users appreciate the streamlined workflows in Mercurial, which they find enhances productivity.
- G2 users highlight Mercurial's strong support for branching and merging, which is often praised for its simplicity and effectiveness. Subversion, while functional, is noted by users to have a more complex branching model that can be cumbersome for new users.
- Users on G2 report that Mercurial has a more favorable product direction score of 6.8, indicating a positive outlook on future updates and features. In contrast, Subversion's score of 6.1 suggests some users are less confident about its ongoing development.
- Reviewers say that Mercurial's quality of support, rated at 7.6, is generally perceived as better than Subversion's 7.3, with users noting quicker response times and more helpful resources available for troubleshooting.
- Users report that Mercurial is particularly well-suited for small businesses, with 54.8% of reviews coming from this segment, while Subversion is favored by enterprises, as indicated by 42.9% of its reviews, suggesting a divergence in target audience and use cases.
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
I like the checkin and checkout that is specifically color coded. The color coding on your local machine itself is sufficient to tell that there are pending changes yet to be checked in or the version is in sync with the server.
Since you maintain a "working copy" on your desktop, I've broken the fragile link between the desktop app and the online repository. I've broken Subversion about every way possible, and learned how to manually remove the "sync" feature for the folders in my...
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...
I like the checkin and checkout that is specifically color coded. The color coding on your local machine itself is sufficient to tell that there are pending changes yet to be checked in or the version is in sync with the server.
When I clone a repository, the whole repository gets cloned, only if I needed parts of it Takes too long to clone
Since you maintain a "working copy" on your desktop, I've broken the fragile link between the desktop app and the online repository. I've broken Subversion about every way possible, and learned how to manually remove the "sync" feature for the folders in my...
