It works until it doesn't. One of the biggest problems with Git IMO is that it always exposed a plethora of internals which therefore have become public interfaces. One is to be expected to know the guts of .git as an intermediate/advanced user. And because those are interfaces, it's _always_ going to be very difficult to fix issues arising from previous wrong design decisions.
Fundamentals in Git aren't necessarily easy to use from the CLI, but you'll get by with a dozen or so command line invocations overall. And I found it astonishing and disheartening how so many people were able to make do with completely illogical commands like "git checkout -b" ...
But once Git sticks you the finger and you _need_ to delve down into its guts, you often have a problem.
Now don't get me wrong, the amount of GUI tools hiding Git's intricacies and web interfaces like GitHub glossing over numerous shortcomings of Git have certainly helped the UX and the popularity. But once you _have to_ delve down to CLI usage because you ran into an issue that your tool tries to gloss over, most people are at a loss. And most people will opt to scrap the current clone+worktree and clone anew. That doesn't really sound to me like people are in command of their tool of choice (Git), though.
And at this point we haven't even touched stuff like refs which only differ in case. It's all fine until Git starts unpacking the refs. Which can be fun on systems like macOS and Windows which have support for case-sensitivity in the file system, but who opted to forgo that via a setting.
The buzzwordiest always win because managers seem to rely on whatever comes up first in a web search. And that's typically Scrum, not Kanban. It's Git, not Mercurial.
Managers won't have to work with the tools they impose on their subordinates. It's the subordinates who have to. But I have also noticed how a lot of people profess to "like" Git for spurious reasons like because it's (allegedly) "so powerful", but then they stick to the simplest workflow possible, because they don't have a clue about intermediate or advanced uses. But that same logic can seemingly also be applied to why C++ "won" (not that I dislike C++ as much as Git, though). The charm is in how powerful it seems to be, but then you use loads of third-party abstractions and throw the alleged performance benefits out of the window.
For an SCM tool I want it to stay out of my way. It's meant to assist me in doing my main job. An SCM should not require my attention all the time because of the shitty CLI, inconsistent subcommands, horrible and incomplete documentation seeping with tool-specific terminology (see man gitglossary) and incomplete (or unidirectional) support for important features (git clone [here] [there], git push to remote with worktree).
Git manages to always require ones attention, and typically in the worst way possible.
Yep, wholeheartedly agree that it will have a bad impact. However, to me Git is nothing I would use voluntarily in my spare time as it is so hostile to its users (not to mention the conceptual shortcomings and outright questionable "features"). So for me it will be Mercurial and if that means helping out with Heptapod and/or other projects, so be it.
One important feature is unfortunately missing: to also clone the wiki (which on Hg projects is a Hg repo in its own right). But that would probably pose a bigger problem, given that Sourcehut appears to have no feature like the (Gollum-based) Wikis in GitHub and GitLab (not sure what they were based on in Bitbucket, though).
Fundamentals in Git aren't necessarily easy to use from the CLI, but you'll get by with a dozen or so command line invocations overall. And I found it astonishing and disheartening how so many people were able to make do with completely illogical commands like "git checkout -b" ...
But once Git sticks you the finger and you _need_ to delve down into its guts, you often have a problem.
Now don't get me wrong, the amount of GUI tools hiding Git's intricacies and web interfaces like GitHub glossing over numerous shortcomings of Git have certainly helped the UX and the popularity. But once you _have to_ delve down to CLI usage because you ran into an issue that your tool tries to gloss over, most people are at a loss. And most people will opt to scrap the current clone+worktree and clone anew. That doesn't really sound to me like people are in command of their tool of choice (Git), though.
And at this point we haven't even touched stuff like refs which only differ in case. It's all fine until Git starts unpacking the refs. Which can be fun on systems like macOS and Windows which have support for case-sensitivity in the file system, but who opted to forgo that via a setting.