Originally, I'd had reasons for using Mercurial (as a secondary option) for source control that didn't much resemble the usual reasons. (For the non-developer, "source control" is software that lets you save different versions of the same files. If you're familiar with how Microsoft Word stores revisions, it's sort of like that.) First, I just wanted to kick its tires and then drag-race it in an empty parking lot. Second, it made keeping two different branches of the same web application in synch almost laughably easy. And, finally, I didn't have to ask permission, rely on someone else to set up repositories and branches and logins and yadayadayada.
The second "branch" of the afore-mentioned web app. has been frozen in carbonite for a couple weeks now. But on the off chance we need to thaw and resuscitate it, I've kept the Mercurial repository of the working "branch" up to date. But it was only today that I realized that I'd been consciously committing code as standalone "snapshots" of specific changes...and (figuratively) kicked myself for not adding the corresponding issue-tracker ID number to the comments for those commits.
Which, I think, indicates that I may have a new go-to version control software package. Assuming, naturally, that the evil minions of Brute-force Standardization don't force the project into rival package Subversion at gun-point. That's always a danger, of course. ;-) But I think it speaks well of Mercurial how natural it feels for the workflow. And, considering that I interact with it via the command-line, that's saying something.
