> This has notable co sequences: when doing operations on a large span of revisions all takes long as a bunch of diffs have to be applied in sequence. This then leads to reluctance of small commits for the wrong reasons.
This happens in Git as well though. If you have to rebase your commits across a few thousand upstream commits, you'll be in for some pain. (For example, I've a commit to PostgreSQL to add ALWAYS DEFERRED constraints, and I've had to rebase it across thousands of upstream commits because I've lacked the time to see that contribution across the finish line.)
You seem to be indirectly arguing for merge-based workflows. (At least that's what I'm reading between the lines. Perhaps my reading is wrong, but I'll run with it until you tell me otherwise.) However, a) merging is not always accepted by upstream, and b) merge-based workflows suck.
I grant that merging is very simple with Git's internals: Git does the three-way merge thing, you manually merge conflicts, you create a commit for the conflict-resolved checked out state, recording the two parents in that commit, and you're done. This works because Git simply stores the objects as they are, internally using deltas -not quite diffs- to compress the object store. This is very simple, yes, but it yields a workflow that doesn't work for many projects. Rebasing is much better, and it always works, especially with [0].
So now you might wonder how to deal with the rebase-across-thousands-of-commits problem. Well, I've a script[0] (not originally mine, but I've hacked on it) that does something like bisection to find upstream commits causing conflicts so as to greatly speed up the process.
[0] https://gist.github.com/nicowilliams/ea2fa2b445c2db50d2ee650...