The content-addressed database for commit objects (but not their names): possibly, yes. It has trivial merge semantics, just keep everything and deduplicate.
But that's equally true of every content-addressed system. And entirely untrue for every named object in git, which are a critical component of git being git, instead of an opaque blobstore with zero semantics.
Yes I agree. I still think its wrong to call Git a CRDT because git is a lot more than its content-addressable system. All that other stuff on top - you know, the parts you use to track and merge branches? That stuff isn't a CRDT.
Maybe its like asking if Wikipedia is a relational database. I assume wikipedia is implemented on top of a relational database. But the resulting wikipedia website? No, not a relational database.
But that's equally true of every content-addressed system. And entirely untrue for every named object in git, which are a critical component of git being git, instead of an opaque blobstore with zero semantics.