Hacker News Reader

Comment by btreecat | Hacker News Reader

While I have learned to be mostly competent when it comes to git day-to-day tasks, I still miss hg for it's clean interface design and simplified workflow.

View on HN

Agreed. It was a version control system for humans. Unfortunately the Hg people decided that the only stable interface would be the CLI, which made it infeasible to build the likes of GitHub around Hg, and GitHub (not Git itself) is what drove Git's success.

Can we stop with "github" narrative? I remember choosing git vs hg back when github wasn't a thing yet. We chose git on its own merits - it was much faster and had much better support for editing commits (it mattered for our code review processs). I am sure our org was not the only one.

(FWIW, I think hg may have caught up in those areas.. But this is too late now.)

Well, I don't think it's mere "narrative". I'm sure Git has its merits--performance, for example--but I seriously doubt this factored into most orgs' calculus considering most orgs probably wouldn't have hit any serious performance issues with hg. I strongly suspect that Git's popularity has a lot more to do with GitHub (and to a lesser extent, the popularity of the Linux kernel) than it did to any actual merit, but I don't think there's any evidence one way or another.

Mercurial had its own GitHub, though. Was it bitbucket? I don’t remember, but it had an equivalent, I think. I really think Linux and performance was a key factor.

Edit: I preferred hg, too, for the record.

BitBucket eventually came to support Mercurial (in addition to Git and maybe others) but it was quite a long time after GitHub had been on the scene.

You misremember:

The version control software market has evolved a lot since Bitbucket began in 2008. When we launched, centralized version control was the norm and we only supported Mercurial repos.

https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b...

Github was launched in April 2008 [1]. Bitbucket is harder to find, but was definitely around by June 2008 [2]. Mercurial vs git was definitely the defining difference between the two initially, though the Rails ecosystem exploding onto Github made a huge adoption difference. git being faster + built in support for rebasing was big was well.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160409191635/http://www.startl...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110317200833/http://code.djang...

Fair enough, bitbucket hit my radar years after GitHub despite me using hg and not git.

Sourcehut (https://sr.ht) seems to have support for Hg projects, though I've never tried it.

Probably, but the git vs hg debate was definitely settled by the time sr.ht hit the scene.

> Unfortunately the Hg people decided that the only stable interface would be the CLI

Citation needed for this.

Mercurial has the best VCS GUI I have ever seen, TortoiseHg. And there are quite a few web UIs supporting Mercurial, namely Kallithea and GitLab’s fork heptapod.net.

I suspect you're confusing API with (G)UI, but in any case here's the citation you requested:

https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MercurialApi

> Mercurial's internals are continually evolving to be simpler, more consistent, and more powerful, a process we hope will continue for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, this process means we will regularly be changing interfaces in ways that break third-party code in various (mostly minor) ways. For the vast majority of third party code, the best approach is to use Mercurial's published, documented, and stable API: the command line interface.

Hg in itself is alive and well. Interacting with git repositories works well with hg-git.

But it is true that, for the mindset of the general public (or younger developers), it might well be nonexistent.

It is a shame, since life with mercurial is still so easier.

Oh yeah, hg was way easier to learn, and IMO to understand. I'm very happy that I learned hg first and then picked up git; I think learning hg first was "easy mode" and then extending to git was easier to learn in turn.

I'm curious what makes you consider it clean? I'm specifically not claiming otherwise; I just don't know what that claim means.

Mercurial is much more straightforward to work with for most common workflows (but can still be extended for other, less common, workflows). I found that I can use mercurial effectively just by reading the built-in help. With git ... not so much.

Not that the documentation on git is bad necessarily, there's just so much of it. A simple demonstration of this might be something like:

  % git help commit | wc -l
  622
  % hg help commit | wc -l
  59
  % hg help commit -v | wc -l
  98

And some of the CLI syntax is rather arcane, too.

It's been years since I last used mercurial, so I'd have to go back to find more specific examples, but I struggled a lot more getting started with git than with mercurial.

It's odd, to me, as I remember not being able to figure out mercurial back in the day. Guessing I had just already made the mental shift to git?

That said, size of manual doesn't seem compelling. The men page for ls, as an example, would make that seem a very tough command to use.

Some people have said they found git more intuitive and easier; its not something objective.

> That said, size of manual doesn't seem compelling. The men page for ls, as an example, would make that seem a very tough command to use.

Sure; it's just indicative of complexity, and therefore, ease-of-use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com