> There’s no harm doing it - if the thing actually works This is the antiphrasis of good project management and stability. No you want to avoid a static targe

> There’s no harm doing it - if the thing actually works This is the antiphrasis of good project management and stability. No you want to avoid a static target in a dynamic environment that is unmaintained (such as an experimental fs in the kernel tree). If it's static and unsupported. You'd end up failing to be run this to recover disks using ryzen9 processors that requires a minimum kernel version where the API/abi have drifted so far that the old module won't compile or import. If you can't afford to get your hands dirty and hack at the API changing if this has such a bus factor. DON'T USE IT. Frankly the argument you're making is the other side of stick with ext2 since it works. It's probably going to die soon and frankly unless there's a community to support it. (such as zfs, or ext4 in the kernel, or CEPH in hpc corporate spaces)