Did either of you read the section at the end entitled "You or I might have done the same thing"..?

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.

If that section was at the top of the post, there might be a very different reaction to it.

If anyone might have done the same thing, why call one person specifically in the first place? This just gives the wrong impression and makes that person more reluctant to make changes.