To play devil's advocate, Git "reinvented the wheel," but it was a much nicer wheel.

Not saying this is to databases what Git was to versioning, but there's a reason to strive for that.

Git's author felt the alternative (gratis) systems were lacking. Noms's author, on the contrary, praises Git but doesn't build on it. He chooses to implement the same technology himself, and from the docs it's not clear to me why that is.

Off the top of my head: git can only use sha1 which makes it unsuitable for any use case where you need to cryptographically verify the origin of data (so far nobody was able to tell me definitely how secure git signed commits and tags really are).

Assuming SHA1 has second pre-image resistance (which it currently still does), the security of git signed commits/tags is the same thing as the security of the private key used to sign the commits/tags.