Second: It doesn't matter if other actual features got pushed before

It matters massively, because it means that its not really a rule

because standard praxis is that they don't. If you have reason to believe your feature is extra special, you ask once and if it's denied let it go.

Also not how it works, other people have asked multiple times and it their reasons are valid then the it gets included

Doesn't it? I'm pretty sure that if ext4 had a similar problem he would have actually made an exception because the value proposition is there.

Linus said himself the experimental label had no bearing in his decision so make of that what you will. And if experimental has any bearing, it would actually imply that Kent can post as many patches as he wants (regardless if they are bugs or not) as long as they are self contained in bcachefs, because that is exactly what experimental implies.

And this exact point has been raised by multiple other maintainers in lkml, if bcachefs is really experimental then by definition it doesn't have the same rules/processes as non experimental filesystems.

As for the point of the experimental label: It makes it clear that the fs is experimental and therefore production usage is discouraged and, some might say, unsupported. Because it's experimental fixing partitions in use is low priority, because there simply shouldn't be anything important on there. You might argue that experimental means that Kent should be free to push more frequently, but I'd argue it's the opposite:

Its fine thats what you argue, but maintainers on lkml think the opposite.

Because it's experimental it doesn't really matter if it's delayed in mainline, people using it shouldn't have important stuff on it and if they need the latest and greatest, they can use a custom branch instead of mainline. That is a burden that can't be expected of regular users, but can be of users of experimental features.

You do realize that this reasoning is a self own, because it also implies that there is no reason NOT TO accept patches into bcachefs as long as its self contained because by your definition of experimental all hands are off.

You cant have your cake and eat it too, either the filesytem is experimental which means the expectations of stability from users is different which also means that the processes that enforce that stability no longer apply OR a filesystem is stable and it needs to strictly follow the processes because people have important data on it.

Also I have been a software engineer for 2 decades now, and in all my life experimental code/features (especially new features which bcachefs is) means that such code gets much higher code churn and has a completely different set of rules/processes than stable/maintained code. Its normal for experimental code to get frequent updates often in response to user bugs/issues because thats how the code then gets stabilized.

You seem to be arguing that bcachefs because of its experimental label means that it should be frozen in the kernel tree and only get updates sporadically, which is not how experimental new code works at all, thats in fact how old well established code is maintained.