But that being said I think it may actually be good to merge it. It seems that there is lots of interest and the maintainers will be around to keep improving it.
Yeah I think people shouldn’t hold it against bcachefs to have some issues in experimental stages and going mainline is a good way to catch obscure & rare bugs.
Look at BTRFS. It was known for data loss but now seems to be pretty stable with lots of eyes and lots of work.
IMHO it’s pretty unfair how people like to give new, complex, filesystems a ‘reputation’ immediately, when there are some issues. I hope not the same is done with bcachefs and it gets its fair shake. Occasional issues popping up now (like in your blog post), hopefully, will also allow some of its cult followers to touch grass and get a reality check (filesystem = difficult). IMHO Kent really should remove the obnoxious “The COW filesystem for Linux that won’t eat your data.”-sentence from his website as it encourages such nonconstructive attitudes. I’m sure he is aware that, at this point, btrfs is less likely to eat your data by many orders of magnitude compared to his draft filesystem (and that’s mainly because most of those data eating bugs have been found and fixed in btrfs, not because it’s somehow impossible to corrupt by design).