The development of this filesystem has been impressive, with ongoing stability improvements. For users seeking an openZFS-like filesystem, but without btrfs’ performance limitations, this option is a good choice. Incorporating it into fedora would be beneficial. Ultimately, it is upto the user to choose but integration of this into fedora make it an another good option for users.
Where do you have this information from?
If bacachefs is enabled by default in the kernel I would expect it to be available for you to test with. But I would suspect that it will be some time before it’s developers will be claiming it production ready.
bcachefs isn’t really OpenZFS like. The feature gap between them is more like a chasm. It is closer to btrfs I guess.
My personal opinion is that bcachefs is not ready for widespread production use yet. In addition to any performance or stability issues one might expect from such a new filesystem, the user-space tools are completely immature.
Lookinto my post i have Added the source and this was a known to be slow i can share other sources other organisations those have better skillset and equipment to do such test.
This is not switching to a new fs rather provide a option which can be used.
That benchmark is on an unreleased kernel.
That benchmark does not compare file system features only raw speed.
It does not for example take into account corruption detection.