On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:

About the rewrite comment: that did not come from a developer, and is
definitely overstated. In any case, rewrites are not inherently bad
news, there's a bunch of OpenZFS videos from last yearss summit in
which the developers talk about various things being completely
rewritten from scratch, some things more than twice. So kinda par for
the course, and given enough time things get rewritten anyway. XFS has
had substantial changes over its history including numerous on disk
format changes even before it found its way onto Linux.

Could be, should be, may be... that's fine - but it all says the same thing... they
don't know how much time it is going to take to fix - and who knows what their
priority is to get around to it.  The advantages over what already is available 
don't appear to be that compelling, especially when weighed with the risks.  

When all this started I did some searches and found Kent Overstreet's page on 
bcachefs:  https://goo.gl/U0UFfN

He had some words about the different filesystems - and had this to say about btrfs:

btrfs, which was supposed to be Linux's next generation COW filesystem - Linux's answer to zfs. Unfortunately, too much code was written too quickly without focusing on getting the core design correct first, and now it has too many design mistakes baked into the on disk format and an enormous, messy codebase - bigger that xfs. It's taken far too long to stabilize as well - poisoning the well for future filesystems because too many people were burned on btrfs, repeatedly (e.g. Fedora's tried to switch to btrfs multiple times and had to switch at the last minute, and server vendors who years ago hoped to one day roll out btrfs are now quietly migrating to xfs instead).

"Software that is designed/ intended to be reliable should not go through large periods of instability only to be written off as "prepubescence"."