Bcachefs seems a really well designed filesystem, because it takes in consideration the lessons learned from other filesystems and its code base is compact and elegant.
It is also very robust because corrupted metadata can be reconstructed scanning the leaf nodes with data. So there are very few weak points in case of disasters. Infact every time there were a report of corrupted data, the bcachefs team was able to fix the code and retrieve the data of the affected users.
I used it for a while, and I were impressed. For example it automatically upgrade its data structures.
It is true that there were a commit of bcachefs that broken the kernel build, because in conflicts with others commits. But this can happen: it is not strictly related to the quality of code of bcachefs, but more to the interaction with other developers, that up to date it is the weak point of the project.
Bcachefs seems a really well designed filesystem, because it takes in consideration the lessons learned from other filesystems and its code base is compact and elegant.
It is also very robust because corrupted metadata can be reconstructed scanning the leaf nodes with data. So there are very few weak points in case of disasters. Infact every time there were a report of corrupted data, the bcachefs team was able to fix the code and retrieve the data of the affected users.
I used it for a while, and I were impressed. For example it automatically upgrade its data structures.
It is true that there were a commit of bcachefs that broken the kernel build, because in conflicts with others commits. But this can happen: it is not strictly related to the quality of code of bcachefs, but more to the interaction with other developers, that up to date it is the weak point of the project.