Editing a file and saving it multiple times is not an atomic operation, but reading a file can be, so having the user issue a reload command only after he's finished editing a file is an entirely reasonable approach that has been used in Linux since forever and it only shares some basic building blocks with version control or transactions, but there's nothing fancy about the approach. Fancy and very error-prone would be to apply configuration changes automatically, which is what the article seems to suggest.
In other words the joke is lame :-P
The only safe way to update a config file of a running service is with POSIX atomic rename, and most editors don't do that by default.
(Even I'm not sure if this is sarcasm any more)
And it is being obsoleted, with the elephant in the room being that the Windows Registry needs to be thread-safe because it's a central store of all settings and this was a really bad idea. I'll also have my nginx.conf over a registry entries file any day of the week.
Actually, it's not that bad an idea:
cd /home/efaref/config/servername
vim blahd.service
git commit -m "Update blahd service file to increase widget count"
git push live master
Then have something else watching the master branch of the live repo do a git pull, systemctl daemon-reload. It doesn't even have to live on the same server. If one of the config files is a puppet script, you can maintain everything.