I switched to mercurial a couple years back, and generally found it a much smoother and nicer experience. It can't do anything that git can't do, but the basic operations felt much better.
A summary of the stuff I liked: histedit feels much more natural than rebase -i, and I rarely need to look up arguments.
When rebasing, I frequently found that I needed to look up what was what of the three refs git can take (source, dest and onto).
hg undo, unamend and split take complicated flows in git and make them trivial.
I don't think I ever got as good an understanding of the hg model as I had with git, but I had to get that understanding because I screwed up my repo and wanted to fix it. I've never done that in hg.
See, this is a useful comment: it avoids hyperbole and has specific details people can understand even if they don’t agree with every point.
I have only once had a VCS lose data, but that was amusingly the opposite: mercurial, before they had a standard rebase-like mechanism, so the only takeaway I’d draw is that a feature like that needs to be very well tested.
A summary of the stuff I liked: histedit feels much more natural than rebase -i, and I rarely need to look up arguments.
When rebasing, I frequently found that I needed to look up what was what of the three refs git can take (source, dest and onto).
hg undo, unamend and split take complicated flows in git and make them trivial.
I don't think I ever got as good an understanding of the hg model as I had with git, but I had to get that understanding because I screwed up my repo and wanted to fix it. I've never done that in hg.