Due to my workplace I moved from svn to hg (awesome experience) and then from hg to git (terrible experience). That was years ago, and the git experience remains terrible.
If you're interested, can compare tfs to git. Maybe it's ide integration quality, but FWIW:
1) tfs: shelves are named and can be worked with independently; git: stashes are numbered in a sort of a stack and only the top stash is unpacked and deleted destroying your data, infuriating, also local edits are moved into the stash, not copied.
2) tfs: branches are mapped to different folders and can be worked on simultaneously; git: branches are mapped to single folder and switching branches deletes local edits.
3) tfs: pulling from server merges new text preserving local changes; git: pull and checkout deletes local changes.
4) tfs: can't commit unresolved merge conflicts; git: commits just fine, it's also not obvious if you have merge conflicts to commit or not.
5) tfs: handles concurrent edits as merge conflicts and handles them as they occur; git: you create feature branches and in case of concurrent branches you have merge conflicts when you merge to master, then you have p.4. Feature branches are advertised as a big fat killer feature of git, but I don't quite see the win here, you still have merge conflicts.
6) tfs: all commits in a branch are visible, it's not obvious how to delete them, you can only create rollback commits; git: if something happens to the branch label, the commits are gone.
> 1) tfs: shelves are named and can be worked with independently; git: stashes (...)
I don't think your comparison makes sense. Git stash is a way to quickly get to a clean local workspace that can be reversed as you see fit. You use local branches to track independent work.
> tfs: can't commit unresolved merge conflicts; git: commits just fine
Again, this doesn't make sense. In git, users determine whether a conflict is resolved or not. If you commit a changeset originating from a merge conflict, you have to explicitly state that the conflict was resolved and your changes are good.
> Feature branches are advertised as a big fat killer feature of git, but I don't quite see the win here, you still have merge conflicts.
Honestly I didn't understood what point you tried to make. Merge conflicts happen because multiple sources of change touch the same document region in a way that can't be resolved automatically, thus needing human intervention. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cvs in the world that eliminates merge conflicts.
Regarding Git's support for feature branches, the fact that you don't understand the big win Git brought to the world with it's branching model is already a testament to how groundbreaking Git was at the time, and how everyone around was quick to roll out Git clones that follow the same approach. To see what I mean, spend a day working with a SVN repository trying to do work involving feature branches.
> git: if something happens to the branch label, the commits are gone.
Aren't you actually saying that if you delete a branch then the branch is deleted?
I assume tfs and svn work with feature branches the same way. In my experience with feature branches in tfs they were a hindrance, not a win.
Local branches store immutable state, but shelves can be unpacked anywhere (like a stash), thus local changes carry over, but git deletes them on every occasion.
In a nutshell, git has an unintuitive and unfriendly CLI with bad defaults.
I want my VCS to be quiet, out of sight and do as it's told, because my main focus should be programming, not how to tame a tool that's supposed to save text. The fact that you have to "learn git", and that there are so many StackOverflow git question on how to do (what should be) trivial operations is probably a hint that things aren't great in the usability department.
For hg, I just read an introductory guide (I think it was Joel Spolski's one) and that was enough. I used to be able to do a more in-depth comparison and criticism but nowadays I use git and try not to think about it too much.
> In a nutshell, git has an unintuitive and unfriendly CLI with bad defaults.
I see this claim often, but it never is accompanied by evidence or any concrete example.
I've been using Git for years and I never noticed any semblance of unintuitiveness or bad defaults. Everything in the happy path is straight-forward, and all obscure things are a quick googling away.
Do you actually have any concrete example to back your claims? What's the absolute best example you can come up with of said unintuitiveness and unfriendliness?
In case I wasn't clear, "git has an unintuitive and unfriendly CLI with bad defaults" when compared to hg.
Just compare the man pages! "git help clone" vs "hg help clone".
A random (trivial) example off the top of my head. When working with branches:
> git pull
> git switch another-branch
Your branch is behind 'origin/another-branch' by 2 commits, and can be fast-forwarded.
(use "git pull" to update your local branch)
... why? I literally just pulled, why are you asking me to pull again? 99% of the people on the planet literally want the last version of that branch (provided there's no local changes leading to a conflict).
Compare with hg:
> hg pull
> hg update another-branch
Done.
I haven't worked with hg in a long time so I can't really provide an "absolute best example". All I can say is that, from memory, hg always got out of the way, and when I wanted to do something out of the ordinary I could either guess how to do it or it was easy to figure out from the manual.
With git, almost nothing's easy. It can become easy if you invest a lot of time in understanding how it works internally (which explains some of its CLI choices). But that to me is a sign of a bad tool. "all obscure things are a quick googling away" - why expose the user to obscure things to begin with?
The entire CLI is badly designed, with highly non-orthogonal commands interacting in unexpected ways. Recent versions of git has started introducing commands with a more top-down design (e.g. git switch), but that's a very novel development
Git also diverged significantly from the SVN command line, but instead of following the tasteful Darcs path of making commands clearer and cleaner it commonly:
- reused the same terms for different operations, usually less intuitive ones (e.g. the absolutely awful "git revert")
- removed clear commands to confusingly tack them onto others (e.g. "git add" to resolve commits)\
On that front, mercurial extended the existing commands-set much more cleanly and clearly.
Mercurial's CLI felt like an improved extension of SVN's, Darcs felt like a drastically different take with plenty for it, Git's felt like one of those ransom letters cut out of newspapers, full of jangly bits which make little sense, and concepts which worked fine altered for no perceivable reason.
The fact, e.g., that it's a completely different operation than checking out a single file or folder? (One changes HEAD, one doesn't. One warns about overriding local changes, one doesn't, etc.)
