> My own inclination is that Andrew's implementation, being more general
> in nature, would be the better one to have in the codebase; but we don't
> have a complete patch yet. Can we reach some compromise such as if
> Andrew's patch is not completed then we push Surafel's?
+1
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:35 PM Andrew Gierth <
andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
> I was largely holding off on doing further work hoping for some
> discussion of which way we should go. If you think my approach is worth
> pursuing (I haven't seriously tested the performance, but I'd expect it
> to be slower than Surafel's - the price you pay for flexibility) then I
> can look at it further, but figuring out the planner stuff will take
> some time.
Flexibility with more generalized code is good, though if performance is significantly slower I would be concerned. I quickly reviewed the patch but haven't tested it yet.
Is it realistic to add PERCENT into this patch or would that be a future enhancement?
