How does Mercurial stack up against GIT and SVN?

Viewed 1922

With Phil Haack and others recently tweeting about CodePlex's move to support Mercurial as a DVCS, I thought it might be worth a look.

As someone who currently uses SVN for personal projects and TFS at The Office, how does Mercurial compare in terms of usability, features and what are some of the better Mercurial hosting services available?

6 Answers

Compared to SVN, for which I recently worked with again after quite awhile, Mercurial is amazing. It gave me a feeling of "Why would anyone use SVN anymore". SVN is pretty good, but Mercurial really does just work better.

For personal projects I would switch without a doubt to a DVCS. It does everything SVN does but better, and much faster. The "learning curve" is just understanding some terminology.

In reality the difference between SVN and a DVCS is that everyone has a full working repository on their system. If you decide to have a "master server", it is exactly the same as what you have, except it is setup to continually serve over a network. To sync these all you do is send/receive(push/pull) the changes between these repositories.

One thing not mentioned in the Google comparison was that Git appears to be much faster. Mercurial seems fast enough (with small projects at least) but Git is simply lightning-fast no matter what size the project.

SVN has lots of support by 3rd party tools including IDE and bug tracking systems etc including the rather nice TortoiseSVN.

Most developers have used SVN in the past, so getting new developers up to speed on your team is quicker with SVN.

How important this sort of thing is to you, only you can decide.

Related