@Kalki70 First of all thanks for the analysis (especially done in #2361). We are a group of developers in this project and certainly are open to discussions and feedback that is focussed at the topic.

I agree that the observed behaviour might be in some cases not that one want and another option would be benefitial. Many years ago this was one of the reasons to make it e.g. more explicit with backup/fallback options in carrierroute. But there might be scenarios were you don't want this rehashing done (e.g. if you use a stable partitioning user -> user location DB). This is something were a simple replacement (like currently done) is better as this rehashing.

Your extension to the module is welcome, we usually accept most of the pull requests in this project. I think all that Daniel said is that it should go in as a dedicated algorithm and not as a configuration parameter. We already have quite a lot of configuration parameter in this (and other) modules, so it might be easier for people to understand in the end.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.