And, in addition to that, I find it very hard to believe that anyone who used both can sincerely say Hg's CLI interface is 'just as bad' as git's. I've used both and switched to git eventually, because from a technical point of view it's simply the better tool. Git is faster, more flexible, easier to deploy. The things it is not: more intuitive, easier, more consistent.

I don't understand why many git apologists continue to try to paper over the atrocious CLI that comes with git by blaming the user for not knowing his tools well enough. The tool is supposed to serve the user, not the other way around. Personally I think everything about the git CLI sucks, plain and simple. The command structure and naming, the switches, the error messages, the documentation, all of it. Compared to git, the hg CLI is a thing of beauty. Yet I still prefer git over Hg. No need to sugarcoat it and pretend git is flawless though.