Regardless of the merits of CRDT's, I'm just glad someone is finally trying to create a new version control system. Everyone loves to complain about Git but nobody's actually tried to move beyond it in two decades.
Having lived through sccs, pvcs, SourceSafe, Clearcase and svn (among others), the introduction of lightweight, sane branching, merging, rebasing etc was a revelation.
Yes, there are still things that an adept could do with some of those other systems that git doesn't make easy. For example we have the holy war between those who demand a git repo has a clean history vs those who would rather a revision control system actually stores revision history and forms a record of what really happened. In Rational ClearCase you would use a different config specification depending on your task to programatically select visibility, and hey presto, you have both views available.
(Not that I would wish ClearCase on my worst enemy these days, those config specs were a language in themselves and the amount of times people would get in trouble with them was a real drag, and that's only one of the myriad downsides.)
Then git came along and did away with so much of that complexity that I imagine there are legions of us who think it's good enough (TM) that version control is more or less a solved problem and nothing irks us enough to seek out alternatives.
I wanted them to demonstrate that they'd thought about it and had some insight rather than give a specific answer. But now it's just "... uh, git, I've only really used git", and you can't blame anyone for that because it's so dominant now. I've updated my question to be about branching strategies but I'm just not as fond of it.
Well, you've inspired me to have a look more into the competition. I don't think git is perfect, I think it's just good enough and it'll take quite a lot to shift people over to something else now we have the whole github network effect. But hey, no harm in looking around :)