Mercurial is a free, distributed source control management tool. It handles projects of any size and boasts an easy and intuitive interface. Mercurial handles projects of any size and kind. Every clone contains the whole project history, so most actions are local, fast and convenient. Mercurial supports a multitude of workflows and can enhance its functionality with extensions.
Git is by far the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. I would recommend it to anyone, whether it's an individual working on their own project, a small start-up company, or a huge organization with thousands of developers. Maintaining code via source control is absolutely mandatory for all developers everywhere.
If you generally think that to develop software you have to choose one repository, then in my opinion you have to choose between Mercurial and Git, there is not other solution. Mercurial also has a good merge tool which i can recommend. This gives you the flexibility to push just the "part of the feature", and is much better suited in the case where the "part of feature" and some other "part of the feature" both contain changes to the same file.
Git is designed to work in a distributed manner, allowing each developer to run a local node that has full control of the project. Through this, the developer is able to merge his work with others on a main 'branch' & work in sync without having to worry about stepping on your other developers toes.
Because Git has solved the software problem of dependency, users who commit code that needs to be deleted can just roll back to a restore point, saving precious development time & tons of headaches for Information Technology. This is also very helpful when cloning projects or creating new features on the current project.
Git has a beautiful command line interface that is intuitive, easy to learn & extensible. You can also observe all the changes you have made in your project throughout the development with just a few simple commands. This diverse set of command-line tools is easy for the end user & very powerful.
Some of the commands are a little obtuse if you're not using a Git Client
Since Git is so widely used in the development space, it's easy to believe that growth and innovation might become stale in the area of version control. Competition is sparse these days and I'm curious if this "Standard" is going to keep moving forward somehow.
It's hard to fault a tool that is so ubiquitous and hardly gets in your way.
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
GIT being a widely used tool have better reliability than its peers and have stands out when we compare it on operational performance criteria. GIT with speedy and extensive branching capabilities have helped developers to use check in their code quickly and space efficient way. GIT have the facility to quickly fetch the complete repository on to your local system.
When we chose Mercurial it was more popular from perspectives than Git and we have too many problems with the Microsoft team foundation solution. We also want to move from a centralized version of source control to a distributed one. We also were working more and more via the Internet with our source control so distributed version was only solution.
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.
