Bcachefs may be headed out of the kernel

So the assertion is that users with (critical) data loss bugs need complete solutions for recovery and damage containment with all possible speed, and without this "last mile" effort, stability will never be achieved.

The objection is the tiniest bug-fix windows get everything but the kitchen sink.

These are both uncomfortable positions to occupy, without doubt.

No, the assertion is that the proper response to a bug often (and if it's high impact - always) involves a lot more than just the bugfix.

And the whole reason for a filesystem's existence is to store and maintain your data, so if that is what the patch if for, yes, it should be under consideration as a hotfix.

There's also the broader context: it's a major problem for stabilization if we can't properly support the people using it so they can keep testing.

More context: the kernel as a whole is based on fixed time tables and code review, which it needs because QA (especially automated testing) is extremely spotty. bcachefs's QA, both automated testing and community testing, is extremely good, and we've had bugfix patchsets either held up or turn into flamewars because of this mismatch entirely too many times.

While I absolutely think you're taking a stand in the wrong fights, like I don't see why you needed to push it so far on this hill in particular, I am sympathetic to your argument that experimental kernel modules like filesystems might need a different release approach at times.

At work we have our main application which also contains a lot of customer integrations. Our policy has been new features in trunk only, except if it's entirely contained inside a customer-specific integration module.

We do try to avoid it, but this does allow us to be flexible with regards to customer needs, while keeping the base application stable.

This new recovery feature was, as far as I could see, entirely contained within the bcachefs kernel code. Given the experimental status, as long as it was clearly communicated to users, I don't see a huge problem allowing such self-contained features during the RC phase.

Obviously a requirement must be that it doesn't break the build.