

The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git - jgalvez
http://stevelosh.com/blog/2010/01/the-real-difference-between-mercurial-and-git/

======
generalk
_I personally don’t like [git's] index. I feel that git encourages people to
check in changesets that contain code which they’ve never tested (or even
built) because the index is such a prominent part of git’s workflow._

This doesn't make sense.

Git has the concept of the "index", which is the set of changes to be
committed. This can be (and usually is) different from "every modified file in
the working directory."

For example: when working on a change that spans multiple files, I frequently
work on one file, add it to the index, and continue in that fashion. By the
time I'm done the index reflects every file necessary for the [feature|bug
fix|whatever] and is easily committed.

The index doesn't _encourage_ commits any more than having modified files in
the working directory does.

------
drdaeman
> `git help checkout | wc -l` vs `(hg help update && hg help branch && hg help
> revert) | wc -l`

Excuse me, but comparing text readability and documentation quality by line
counting is boldly incorrect.

------
bibblebox
The real difference between Mercurial and Git:

Steve Losh is to stupid to use git.

