Can we just agree that mercurial is vastly superior to git?

>completely unrelated rant on elitism
saying that 99% of my complains only pertain to people "new to git" is quite literally
>LOL NOOB xD
elitism

>it's counterintuitive
>reduntant commands
>similar commands
>complex documentation
>cryptic syntax
I know you're mentally challenged, but these are only problems to someone who doesn't know the software. If you have already mastered it, they are irrelevant. That you then jump to that meaning something about elitism just goes to double down on how challenged you are.

>python 2.7
the codebase has to be clusterfuck to not be ported to 3.6+ yet
>DAG
how does that work with branching and merging?
>rewriting history
tbqh I don't mind git being able to manipulate with local history, you can make a commit adding bunch of debugging stuff and then just rebase it out, simplify the branches to be more linear etc., that's useful
>gui
git gui and gitk

I really miss a simple server for git that doesn't require full apache or so for casual use.
Also central management of all my or cloned repos.

I'm also very confused about authentication and user credendtials how does it play with github.
Also confused how working dir and staging area behaves with checkout.

gitg is best git gui

It's really hard to get people to trust your program, especially when it handles important data. The only reason git became the norm was because Linux switched to it. People think "it has to be good right?"

Just because this one has "better syntax" doesn't mean shit. It doesn't even have the equivalent of a Linux.

>dont you think you should at least try it out once before completely dismissing it?
I don't know about you but I only try new stuff if I'm not happy with my current situation.

sure, but who cares? darcs is superior to both.

Git is an industry standard.

>git OTOH is a fucking mess
I 100% agree with you OP. We were not given a choice in the university, expected to use git, period. I would love to try apparently more or less the same, but much less convoluted mercurial. I wasn't given the chance.

Even my instructors/assistants didn't know git to its entirety. To this date, I believe that nobody really knows. It simply is a mess.

I still despise it, but yeah, I do use git whenever I find the need to use a VCS and never used mercurial in my life ever. Why? Just like you said, because GitHub is one thing, but I actually use Atlassian's BitBucket, since it gives free private repositories.

So, again, why? Because Visual Studio Code has a perfectly simple git UI integrated into it. I don't have to deal with any fucking mess of the git. All the gits mess has been interfaced to a useful simple set of functions.

>pic related
The list contains many things I never use, or even know what they are supposed to do. All I use is:
>Undo Last Commit
>Stash, rarely
And that's all. For commit, I enter the message in the box and either Ctrl+Enter, or use the tick button above. For pull/push, I use the circular arrows button on the bottom left corner of the window.

It is fucking atrocious to use the git command line. Nobody uses bare git from the command line I think, they either use an (integrated) UI like me, or a wrapper like "magit" like a friend of mine.

I still wish I was using something that is not this atrocious and convoluted, that I can understand, even if I use a simplified UI for it daily. I can only wish that even the programming people weren't such idiots to follow a disgusting leader so blindly, so that there would be tools integrated with the sufficient and superior-in-simplicity mercurial than this shit.

Attached: vscode git.jpg (1920x1080, 532K)

better than "I mainly use mercurial because nobody does"

>If you have already mastered it, they are irrelevant.
This is just perpetualism. It's like 5th graders bullying on 4th graders, because they were bullied by the 5th graders last year when they were 4th graders.

Or like arguing against quilting machinery being utterly needless and irrelevant, when you have mastered the skills of quilting, albeit in a much smaller magnitude of improvement.

We get it OP, you're a brainlet. No need to make a thread to let us know.

git*
>hashed-repos/snapshots
>index/staging
>history rewriting is easy
>history safety through reflog
>branching from birth
>modular/Unix-y
>an entire platform
>thus more flexible and configurable
>more space but faster

hg
>append-logs/changesheets
>no index
>history rewriting is complex
>history safety through immutability
>cheap branching clone added later
>monolithic
>an application doing lots of things
>thus less flexible but easier to use
>less space but slower

Mercurial has probably a more high-level interface, but Git dominates otherwise as hard as it is to think that the popular tool happens to also be the best.

git is a mess of C, sh, Perl, Tcl and Python

You forgot to mention that git is written with an actual programming language.

anything > git
go the fuck back

I chose Mercurial since it feels clean and elegant -- I was put off by the shell/Perl/Ruby scripts I got with Git. Try taking a peek at the git-instaweb.sh file if you want to know what I mean: it is a shell script which generates a Ruby script, which I think runs a webserver. The shell script generates another shell script to launch the first Ruby script. There is also a bit of Perl, for good measure.

>the git-instaweb.sh
github.com/git/git/blob/master/git-instaweb.sh

Attached: git_client_graph_380x204.png (380x204, 16K)

What does all of that have to do with git?