Revisit policy merging for boolean keys

[michaelklishin]

Proposed Changes

For booleans, we can prefer the operator policy value
unconditionally, without any safety implications.

Per discussion with @binarin @pjk25

Types of Changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes issue #NNNN)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause an observable behavior change in existing systems)
• Documentation improvements (corrections, new content, etc)
• Cosmetic change (whitespace, formatting, etc)
• Build system and/or CI

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• All tests pass locally with my changes
• If relevant, I have added necessary documentation to https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-website
• If relevant, I have added this change to the first version(s) in release-notes that I expect to introduce it

[michaelklishin]

@Mergifyio backport master

[mergify]

backport master

✅ Backports have been created

• #3882 Revisit policy merging for boolean keys (backport #3880) has been created for branch master