Experience with git after 4 months

I switched to git from mercurial about 4 months ago. As Matt Mackall (the main author of mercurial) has pointed out, my arguments were partially just excuses for the switch, because everything could be fixed in mercurial as well (eventually). On the other hand, I really wasn't expecting to switch when I invested time and energy to learn mercurial. Also because I thought that git doesn't have such a nice documentation, has a steep learning curve and the community is hostile, because it is developed by the kernel people who are famous for sometimes being not so nice on the mailinglists (as I now found out, none of these are true). I was getting annoyed by small things one by one, after finally I said to myself enough is enough, let's just switch.

So as to the steep learning curve --- it took me a day or two to being able to do what I want, so it seems to me it's really easy to learn once you know some distributed vcs. I found out the documentation is much better than in mercurial --- in git one just types "git help command" and a full man page fires up with lot's of information and examples. In mercurial, one just gets a couple lines (compared to git) of help in the terminal, without examples. Also the first (actually second) thing I noticed is that "git log" (and other commands like "git diff") doesn't scroll out my terminal, but uses "less" automatically -- that's just great. The first thing I noticed is that git is superfast for almost every operation, especially it's noticeable with "git diff". As to the community, I only had a chance to send a few emails to the git list, so I cannot really say, but so far it's very responsive and friendly.

However, those are just little things that can (and I am sure they will) be fixed in mercurial as well. What is a big thing are branches, especially remote branches. One just fetches a remote repository and then works with it like with any other local branch, e.g. one can switch to it, or just "git log some_remote_branch" to see what is in there. One can easily compare them etc. With mercurial, I was using "hg out" and "hg in" commands to see what changes I will pull or push, but those commands require internet connection, so it really sucks and it's slow. In mercurial, I was using different directories for different branches, but that's just extremely inconvenient and also slow (creating a new branch is just a matter of adding one file, not copying the whole repository --- for example with the sympy hg repository, I often had to wait several seconds to clone a repo, while with the git repository it's just instant) and big (in terms of megabytes).

The bible of Mercurial, the hgbook says:

In most instances, isolating branches in repositories is the right approach.

But I think it's the wrong approach. The only argument for doing this that I accept is that sometimes you are not sure which branch you are in in git --- well, I use this trick (actually, just read the documentation of __git_ps1 in /etc/bash_completion.d/git), so my bash line always says which branch I am in using the red color. I never do any mistakes with this.

Anyways, I could continue like this (e.g. check out "git svn", "git rebase -i" and many other things), but you can read why git is better for example here, no need to repeat here. I am very happy now and I can only recommend to learn git.

So let me also say some things that are worse in git --- one thing that could be improved are URLs of the gitweb (hgweb urls are neat, gitweb urls use "?id=..." stuff). Another thing is that the debian package git is not git! You need to install git-core to get git (but this seems to be getting fixed).

There is also an interesting discussion happening right now in the debian-python mailinglist about switching the DPMT repositories to git. I think almost all opinions (for and against) were already stated, but if you have some opinion that wasn't yet said, please do so.