On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:23:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Yes that's the usecase and the possibility to make more targeted tests > > is also good, but that still means the feature is half-baked and missing > > the main part. If it was out of scope, ok fair, but I don't want to > > merge it at that state. It would be embarassing to announce mirror > > selection followed by "ah no it's useless for anything than this special > > usecase". > > I didn't realize the need for default policy is prioritized before this > patch set. The updated default policy has been asked for for a long time so this is what makes it important. > Potential default read policy is interesting, looking into it. Thanks.
