Hi, On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > Implementing multi-step maps or making the hashmaps non-caching > > doesn't solve any of the above problems > > I'm not saying that making those hashmaps non-caching solves any of > these problems. Ah, I didn't mean to imply this, I meant to imply that enforcing policy as you do is a good thing because it finds bugs, and that the policy to be enforced should be forbidding multi-step deps :) > I'm saying that it decouples fixing the policy (for which I have a > patch) from fixing the issues that allow us to use these 3 as caches > again (for which there are no patches yet). The advantage of having a > policy in place is that we won't regress for tables still marked as > cache (or new tables marked as cache). So blocking committing the policy > on those issues makes no sense IMHO. That's right, I didn't argue for that either. But there should then be at least a PR with a patch that disables the work-arounds for policy breakers (the three decl-debug hash-maps), that if applied breaks bootstrap, so that the fact that there's still a real bug somewhere doesn't get lost. Ciao, Michael.
