There's one advantage to this approach that, as far as I've seen, no other password manager has been able to replicate. Pass is simple. It is literally a few hundred lines of clear, easy to read bash shell script (yeah, that's a phrase I never thought I'd hear myself saying, ever). It's simple because it's created by composing standard, simple off-the-shelf technologies (bash, gpg, git). Compared to more monolithic solutions, it's easy to compose those very same technologies in a different way. That, in turn, makes it easy to adapt to new settings, and super resilient to new use cases like different sync technologies.
(and yes, I do appreciate that this is not a feature that everyone wants/needs)
(and yes, I do appreciate that this is not a feature that everyone wants/needs)