Mercurial Reviews & Product Details

Mercurial seemed to be a good trade off between flexibility and complexity.

I discovered hg (mercurial chemical symbol) at the same time as git, although I was becoming to feel comfortable with git, I recognized that its learning curve was a bit too expensive for any users.

The other important thing is that there are many conversions tools from or to git , so if you decide to use hg today you wont be stuck for in it forever, you can convert repo to git and virtually to any other, ever downgrade to subversion using those tools. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Well I think git is getting more popular than hg, so I wont dare to use both, I switched most of my trees to git. I think I wil remain a git user because of it's community. maybe it could make sense to "emulate" hg client on a git backend for connecting both worlds ? Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's simple, while powerful.

I tried git, it's too complex. I don't like complex things, keep simple, focus on own work, and do it the best.

I believe mercurial have done her work good.

Maybe because the feature set I'm using is limited. I should explore more. For now, well, it works! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

No. Lots of project is managed with git, I can not use mercurial. If that is a problem, yes, I do not like this.

So maybe we could have some convert stuff, make it possible to manage git project with mercurial.

Yes, we need better GUI tool. Tools like mercurial is for managing work, better UI makes it easier. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Works great once you find good software, I would say you should use sourcetree Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Lack of software diversity/support, most git software wont work Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's fairly powerful but simple to use. It has a lot of the same concepts and functionality as git but with much less of a learning curve. Also, "hg incoming" and "hg outgoing" are really useful. And so are extensions like hg record and hg shelve. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's less powerful than git and I like git's branches more than mercurial's branches/bookmark system. I think git's harder learning curve is worth it due to the wealth of features git has, and even though mercurial is good for getting devs up to speed quickly, I prefer using git whenever possible. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It is easy. If you used to SVN, most of it is the same but more powerfull. If you used GIT, it is the same, but easier to use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

No Github. Github needs GIT or SVN. You can install a plugin to interact with GIT, but is was easier to just learn GIT last time I tried. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

* Carefully thought-out command-line interface (no checkout -b vs branch)

* Extensibility (there's an extension for absolute most tasks you might need)

* Builtin manual completeness

* Lack of sophisticated conventions (unlike Git's "branch" definition) Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There's much less tools that support Mercurial, but major ones do which seems to be quite enough. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Mercurial is very powerful distributed VCS with very simple branching model. It is excellent for small projects with relatively short history as well as awesome for big enterprise level projects.

One more "feature" of mercurial is it's mercurial-server - very simple and reliable way to organise private repository server. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes configuring of Mercurial extensions could be annoying. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Mercurial is basically equivalent to git, IMO. I liked the support for Windows back when I was doing development on Windows for Windows users. Using git's terminology, I found I could do what I needed to do using only the "porcelain" without resorting to "plumbing" commands. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The biggest complaint I hear from people is that Mercurial isn't git. Unfortunately, they both use some common terms for very different concepts. So, if you learned git first, Mercurial is confusing at first. I learned Mercurial first, so git was confusing at first. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's reliable. It's flexible. It's easy to learn the basics. It's supported on many platforms: Windows, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and Linux. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I would really like to have a simple solution for shared- and/or sub-repositories. Mercurial has ways to support both, but neither is easy to use or transparent. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It is easy to learn and has good version control tools. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I hear git has better, but I haven't come across items wishing hg was like git Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.