(Problems along this line already are why the bcachefs dev told users to avoid debian and the packager eventually dropped the package: https://www.reddit.com/r/bcachefs/comments/1em2vzf/psa_avoid...)
At the same time, I suspect this kind of policy will make my life harder than necessary: users who hit bugs due to distribution packaging quirks will be redirected to me for triage, and I'll have a very hard time understanding (much less fixing) quirks that are tied to transitive subdependencies that my own builds intentionally exclude.
This was my thought. Xubuntu decided to ship unstable development pre-releases of the core Xfce components in their last stable OS release, and I got really annoyed getting bug reports from users who were running a dev release that was 4 releases behind current, where things were fixed.
This was completely unnecessary and wasted a bunch of my time.
The problem is users have gotten savvy about talking to upstream directly. It helps that upstream is usually on easy-to-use and search-engine-indexed platforms like GitHub these days vs mailing lists. It would still be fine if the user did the diligence of checking whether the problem exists in upstream or just the distro package, but they often don't do that either.
I like Debian's stability and don't really need my filesystem to move fast and break things. If this is the direction bcachefs is going, I don't think it's ever going to be a good platform to run an OS on top of.
Related HN discussion from August/September: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41407768