The biggest differentiation for me between Git and Mercurial is that Mercurial is far better for code reviews because it manages stacks of "as small as possible" changes much easier. The git workarounds I've tried to replicate 'hg histedit' and 'hg absorb' are ... not good.
Similarly, I think Git(hub) has succeeded in open source because bundling more complete changes into PRs works well for unevenly distributed contributions.
Similarly, I think Git(hub) has succeeded in open source because bundling more complete changes into PRs works well for unevenly distributed contributions.