[rekoil]

> Working with the kernel has been extremely disruptive to bcachefs development and the community

From an excited and hopeful potential future user looking in, this sounds like "working with <insert only grocery store in town> has been extremely disruptive to me selling my produce", there's nowhere else your customers can realistically get your product, unless you want to only sell to extremely picky customers who will make the hour long trip out to your farm and back.

> I do not strictly need bcachefs to be in the kernel.

But I (and your other users) do...

I shouldn't be weighing in, I'm a lightweight with no skin in the game here, just a regular (very technical) user. I guess I just want you to know that your product has many people that want to use it, but even I won't drive to your farm for it, as I can't risk a Linux-update breaking the DKMS-modules that make my system able to use the bcachefs filesystem all my data is on.

I don't know what possible avenue we have of getting bcachefs back into the kernel and maintained, but I hope you find it, whatever it is.

[koverstreet]

I'm not trying to do this as fast as possible and get it out to every single user as fast as possible

That's tech industry thinking; that is what btrfs did :)

In the long run, slow is fast and wins the race. Being in the kernel would have been great if it grew the development community, but instead the opposite happened - it drove people way.

The important thing is to get it done, with all the reliability and hardening and features that people want. There's no reason it can't go back in later.

[rekoil]

I mean I've read a lot of what you've posted everywhere, and I can't really say I disagree with much of it, it's just a shame it all happened the way it did.

Hope "go back in later" isn't too far down the line, I have 10x8TB spinners, and 4x2TB NVMe disks that I'm looking to move from md-raid + BTRFS to something else, and I really want that to be an in-tree filesystem.