>users are using it explicitly because they have lost a lot of data on btrfs

PLEASE, honestly, EDUCATE THESE USERS. This is still marked experimental for numerous reasons regardless of the 'planned work for 6.18'. Users who can't suffer any data loss and are repeating their mistake of using btrfs shouldn't be using a none default/standard/hardened filesystem period.

No, really. People aren't losing data on bcachefs. We still have minor hiccups that do affect usability, and I put a lot of effort into educating users about where we're at and what to expect.

In the past I've often told people who wanted to migrate off of btrfs "check back in six months", but I'm not now because 6.16 is looking amazingly solid; all the data I have says that your data really is safer on bcachefs than btrfs.

I'm not advocating for people to jump from ext4/xfs/zfs, that needs more time.

You're arguing in circles. Either bcachefs is experimental and hence needs a lot of changes and tools to make sure that users dont lose data and hence the fixes are not critical/users can use a custom branch. Or it is stable and the only thing users need is actual big fixes. Not new tools in an RC3.

Don't compare bcachefs with btrfs for stability. Compare it with ext4. (And dont care anecdotal data, compare the process).

So, are we agreeing that btrfs isn't fit for purpose, then?

I don't understand your question. Are you going somewhere with this?

Kent, whenever you're at a point where you could make a good decision and make progress on any non-technical axis, you choose to attack something or someone. This is why you're getting the reactions you are getting. bcachefs design looks good, literally everything else about the project is miserable, because of this.

Now, I fully expect you to react poorly to this message, too. That is the expectation the world has formed of you. Think about that.