This is false, as demonstrated by Mercurial.
This is false, as demonstrated by Mercurial.
http://ahal.ca/blog/2014/new-mercurial-workflow/ http://ahal.ca/blog/2015/new-mercurial-workflow-part-2/ http://evolution.experimentalworks.net/doc/
That said, the problems with Mercurial Queues come from (1) a bolted-on command-line interface that doesn't fit in with the other hg commands and (2) poor integration with the rest of Mercurial. Which is why for most use cases evolve is considered the better option these days.
That said, I find the original claim, that users of snapshot systems have to know the internals, a bit idiotic. Subversion users definitely didn't, nor did most CVS users. Git seems to just be a very loud exception. Whether this is by necessity due to Git's UI, or whether it's simply that Git's data structures are more visible and discoverable, is a debate I'm not touching. (I'd note that there's a direct 1:1 correspondence for all core Git and Mercurial internal structures, so it's definitely not inherent in the snapshot model. There are even very nearly 1:1 analogs to older DVCSes, like BitKeeper and Monotone. Git users just tend to know more about the internals of their tooling.)
Mercurial tutorials aren't like that. It is a lot simpler to use so Mercurial tutorials tend to just tell you how to use it and don't mention the internel implementation details.