It is still a sort of namedropping. In the sense that it is used due to the trendiness of the term.
It is entirely possible and likely that it is used for didactic purposes as many people are familiar with the blockchain structure and its use of hashes.
I thought it was a joke. The whole: blockchain isnt that inovative if you use a strict technical definition because lots of things are a chain of blocks before bitcoin was cool, meme.
And honestly fair enough. The inovative part of bitcoin is not the blockchain but all the economics & game theory going on to create trust in the system
I think this is the reason why it the parent was criticizing it. Blockchain as a term generally mean "crypto-magic-stuff on a blockchain" so for git to use it instead of a more academical Merkel trees (or Merkel DAG if they exist) sound a bit like low effort name dropping.
Again it is not a criticism of the article, but it is not a criticism of the criticism either.
Being, as it is, a chain of signed blocks.