A Note About Git Commit Messages might also be worth checking out. Commits that just say "changed some stuff" are not much use to others (or yourself a couple of weeks later ).

Just stumbled over what seems to be a very nice git book/tutorial available for free online.

http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/Git/article.html

Ok, now check this out:

http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

Funny and sad at the same time!

tig seems to be a pretty decent terminal-based UI to git -- since it's ncurses-based, I don't know if it will run on non-*NIX systems.

It's been a while since I watched them, but I recall Scott Chacon's git videos as being pretty good.  A google should net you some that you can check out to see if his style works for you.

Here's a list I put together 2-3 years ago in an earlier post : http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=25765.msg251306#msg251306

BTW, there was a finally a concrete case here for using Stacked Git.  For maintaining a number of simple patches to some "upstream" it is working pretty well here.  There is even an Emacs interface (perhaps a second one that works with magit -- though that's not what I've tried).

Trying to keep the patches "grouped" isn't something I've figured out though -- heard that topgit might be better for that sort of thing, but so far don't know how to work sanely with the generated history so have been sticking to Stacked Git.

Anyone else using this type of thing?

Anyone know of a modern comparison between Git and Mercurial? A few years ago when I first looked into them, they were both fairly new, and git hardly even worked on Windows. At the time, as a Windows user, Mercurial was the clear winner as far as ease of use and friendly tools to make the commandline stuff easier/unnecessary.

But both Git and Mercurial have been heavily developed over the years, adding who knows what features. And with the popularity of github, Git and tools for it have become developed enough that it may be worth revisiting this decision for future coding projects. I'd like to see an up to date, modern comparison of their features and tools, as I'm considering making the switch from Mercurial to Git if I feel it's worth it. Unfortunately, all my searches just give me links/information dated anywhere from 2008-2012, which was within the range of time when I originally did my research and chose Mercurial.

So, I repeat, does anyone know of a good, modern comparison of Git and Mercurial?

My question mostly arises from the fact that since Git is the clear popular DVCS, there are new technologies/services being built to be used in conjunction with Git. My specific use/need/desire to make the transition from Mercurial to Git is that I do most of my coding for the Unity game engine, and they've recently-ish started a service called Cloud Build which will check your repository for changes, and then automatically make builds of your game for multiple platforms.

They fully support Git, and have for several months. Even on the free plan. Mercurial support was only added within about the past month, and it's locked behind a $100/mo paywall.

But I've been using Mercurial for years and am a little hesitant to just hop on over to Git. I would want to make sure that all the features that I make regular use of in Hg are (easily) available in Git. For example, I use TortoiseHg and I make liberal use of the "Shelve" feature, as well as what I'm going to call "selective commit" since I don't know the name of it. Here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about:

[attachimg=#]

See how I unchecked the box so that change won't be included in the commit? It's important for me to be able to do something like that in Git about as easily as I can in TortoiseHg. I can also shelve things as entire files or selectively like that as well.

I've been reading the Git tutorials from Atlassian. Sounds like the Staging Area would cover my needs/wants for "selective commit" and the Stash (which I'm still unsure how to use) would cover my needs/wants for Hg's Shelves.

I've been using SourceTree to easily handle making/merging/closing branches for the Gitflow workflow (in Mercurial) and TortoiseHg for all the actual committing, shelving, pushing, pulling, etc.

I'll download SmartGit and see if I like that any better than SourceTree. I don't really care for SourceTree's interface, but I like how it has built-in Gitflow tools, so I keep it around for that. Though I suppose if SmartGit has better branch management than TortoiseHg (which basically doesn't have anything for creating or closing branches), I may not even need SourceTree anymore.

Then again, I think "branches" are different things in Git than they are in Mercurial...

Much like you, Deozaan, I looked at Git and Mercurial back when they were fairly new to Windows, and concluded that Git was a mess of *nix specific stuff, and Mercurial was much easier to grasp and get to work on Windows.

A year or two ago, I got sufficiently annoyed by not being able to use GitHub, that I tried Git. At first it was a pain, but after reading some articles on the background and inner workings of Git I kind of liked the simplicity underneath (for instance chapter 2 of Git Internals). And the staging area and selective commits were just great. I also liked the feature-branch idea -- branches are cheap, so you can use them to try something out, and if it doesn't work, just remove the branch and everything is gone again.

Btw, in SourceTree, you can both add individual "hunks" (which are the blocks the diff algorithm produces) to the staging area, or you can click a line and use shift+drag/cursor to select individual lines within a hunk to add:

[attachimg=#]

I use this a lot, since I have a tendency to do drive-by-edits .