I don't agree with any of you. I know people will complain regardless of how scary the warning is, but you simply tell them to go pound sand and that they were sufficiently warned before they ran the tool of the danger. That's how I've always viewed it and when my FS was fried and I got that scary warning I knew I was on my own. After all, that's what real offline backups are for.
I don't understand how fsck can keep up with the file-system when one is integrated into the kernel and advancing independently of the other. It just seems like no matter what you do if you don't involve the wider development community you will never catch up.
I'm not a dev so my opinion doesn't matter but I think this is one of those things that should be out there for everyone to comment and help with. That doesn't mean he has to take all the suggestions as Chris could act just like Linus and lay down ground rules and play the benevolent dictator. I just don't see how he can essentially work alone (or even small team) on a tool that services a FS that's in wide use and development.
Let the distributions decide when it's ready to be compiled and included. Anything else seems to be favoring a single company. What's happening now would be like Linus declaring that no one can use Kernel 3.X until he decides they can.