Nah, mostly I was just flying off the handle. I glanced at the title and didn't look all that closely, so my bad....
Erick On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>wrote: > > : Ugh though. I thought we were going to be stricter about enforcing field > : names to be 'Java identifier'-like characters only. Why > : encourage/support # in a field name? -0 > > There's a differnece between encouraging people to use java identifiers, > and demonstrating that some things work even if you don't. > > This commit didn't add any code to Solr -- ReturnFields was changed a long > time ago to try parsing things multiple ways to fall back on looking for > more esoteric field names as a last resort. > > All i did was add a test to increase the code coverage on ReturnFields to > verify & demonstrate that existing code actually worked. > > If you guys feel strongly that tests like this shouldn't pass, you > should open Jira(s) proposing that these type of features be removed. > (But frankly that seems like a smack in the face to existing users). > > > It doens't make much sense to me to object to a commit that only increases > test coverage of existing code. > > > > -Hoss > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
