For any other confused Americans:

Git is a term of insult with origins in English denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person. As a mild oath it is roughly on a par with prat and marginally less pejorative than berk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

One of the best pranks I've seen is people getting endorsed for git on LinkedIn, from coworkers who don't think quite so high of them as pretended during office hours.

> coworkers who don't think quite so high of them as pretended during office hours

Sounds malicious.

funny thing about git is as a non-Brit, I thought for the longest time it was a made up word.

I thought so too (not a native English speaker, had never seen that word before) until I read a quote from Linus saying that he likes to name his projects after himself.

All words are made up words.

I've always wondered about that one too. I mean naming is a minefield, but using a name that's well known to be at least mildly offensive in a particular dialect of English is probably something I would have chosen to avoid. I suppose at least they didn't call it "prck", "twt", or "cnt". One has to be grateful for small mercies.

From what I recall it was intentional on part of the early git team. They did want to make it clear it was a "dumb" VCS compared to work going on in some of the smarter ones such as darcs. git has always had something of the Unix "worse is better" philosophy at its core, and it is amusing it chose to wear that so much on its sleeve that it took that as a name.

Is "twat" worse than "git"? I thought it was relatively mild as well

I think you'd get different answers from different people but you can really put your back into the UK pronunciation of "twat" to make it sound really venomous, as opposed to the much more innocuous "twot" pronunciation of the US. That tends to make it more offensive. "Git" just doesn't have quite the same impact.

Real developer™ use something called Subversion anyway