[danso]

That empty, rhetorical cliche doesn't mitigate the way the author calls out the maintainer in such an abrupt and unneeded fashion in the first paragraphs. The author hadn't even described the problem before blaming the person; instead, were just told that git has 2 self-inflected, deep "scars", and that a single person, and by implication, that person's poor decision-making, is to blame for those scars.

Naming the maintainer would make sense later on when the author purportedly tries to get into contact with Hamano but, spoiler alert, fails at it.