Mercurial Reviews & Product Details

The like that this revision-control tool is distribuited. So you can commit on your local system the changes that you make and when everything is done you can push the changes on a remote system. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I dislike the native tool of merging differences in hg workbench(the ufficial tool of this sw). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Mercurial is a free, distributed source control management tool. It efficiently handles projects of any size and offers an easy and intuitive interface. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I didn't went through any disadvantages after using this tool Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

In contrast to comparative apparatuses (Git), Mercurial is extraordinarily simple to utilize and cleaned. It gives you the advantage of running a _distributed_ variant control framework without the issue of waiting be a direction line master. On Mac, both I and the group utilized the direction line as often as possible, yet we learned on Windows with an astounding GUI customer (Tortoise). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The facilitating alternatives for network Mercurial undertakings aren't as cleaned as those for Git. Everyone knows (and likely uses) GitHub. Irregular is limited to self-facilitating or less-cleaned devices like BitBucket or (destined to be dead) Google Code. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Quite easy for beginners to get hands-on experience with version control

HTTPS- or SSH-based flexible authentication

Simplified branching for hassle-free feature developments and version management

Extension system for incrementally enabling advanced features

Most commands are simpler than corresponding equivalents in Git etc

Ability to run local Mercurial servers for demonstration/syncing purposes

Good IDE support, often via solid third-party plugins

Deep OS/filesystem integration (e.g. context menus) via TortoiseHg and similar utilities Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Lack of support for some advanced features like --depth support in cloning

Inability to discard closed branches

Lack of in-built pagination support for long outputs (e.g. commit log, unlike in Git)

Inability to maintain staged changes while making further modifications (e.g. Git allows a file to be added to the commit stage and further changes to be made, the latter not being automatically added to the stage) Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really enjoy mercurial extensions and the flexibility they provide Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I wish there was wider support from other sources Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Like most source code control systems, Mercurial tries to force a particular methodology on its users for no good reason. However, the underlying system is sufficiently powerful and there are enough extensions available that it's possible to work around this bias. The "every repo can be a server" capability is also very important. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Reliability is barely acceptable - it's much too easy to get a repo into an unusable state (and no extension are required for this to happen). Recovering from incorrect operations is much too difficult - unlimited rollback should be possible. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Ease-of-use when performing operations like branching, merging, rebasing, reverting file changes, stripping commits, access control to files and branches based on user names and groups.

Besides that, it's very well written (in Python), modular, and easy to extend / modify. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Not as wildly known as Git, and even though it has support for git-based repositories as well, it's got some rough edges at that. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Mercurial has all the features of a good distributed revision control system. Not only is it incredibly useful as a collaboration tool, I find the ability to track changes and rollback to a specific revision invaluable for working by myself too. Mercurial lets you easily see, down to each line of code, when it was first introduced and why, and tools like hg bisect make tracking down bugs much faster. There are many good graphical frontends such as TortoiseHg and SourceTree that make using Mercurial easier, as well as integration with most popular IDEs such as Visual Studio, Eclipse and IntelliJ. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The biggest issue we've had with Mercurial is the lack of a built-in system for file locking, which is a necessity when working with large binary files that can't be merged. Because of this we still use Perforce for some projects, although there doesn't seem to be any other distributed version control system that handles this issue as it's inherent in the distributed model, which in turn brings many benefits. Recently Mercurial seems to be falling by the wayside in terms of support compared to git, which has a very similar feature set. This is probably just due to the popularity of GitHub, but the trend in external tools, editors and IDEs seems to be to support git first. Performance in handling large files is still subpar when compared to Perforce, although again this may be an underlying architectural issue to do with the distributed vs centralised model. Overall performance is still very good. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

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 yourself in the foot. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

With such wide adoption of git, mercurial can begin to lag behind on some of its plugins, especially those that allow interoperability with different repos. If you're using mercurial just as-is with its own repos, you should enjoy it quite well. The way you use mercurial differs from how you'd use git by subtle means, so it's a bit tricky to grasp at first. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

- Easy to use

- Works as it should :D

- Widely supported (Although not as much as git)

- Good Desktop UIs available (TortoiseHg, etc)

- Good Web UIs available (Bitbucket, etc) Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

- CLI commands are equivalent, but not the same as Git, SVN, etc.

- Not as popular as Git, therefore not supported by Github, Gitlab and others Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.