Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

+1. Either way is fine, as long as its enforced. On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, 05:12 Eric Pugh, wrote: > I’m in the *Test.java camp, but primarily care about any consistent > pattern! > > > On Jun 2, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Marcus Eagan wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am reviving this thread but perhaps it should

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

I’m in the *Test.java camp, but primarily care about any consistent pattern! > On Jun 2, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Marcus Eagan > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am reviving this thread but perhaps it should be moved to > d...@solr.apache.org

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Hi all, I am reviving this thread but perhaps it should be moved to d...@solr.apache.org given the project-level changes. Do people favor standardizing Solr to match Lucene's convention or do you prefer *Test.java as the convention? There are many more files, and a few that don't follow either

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Maybe simply apply the standard in both places? On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:04 AM Eric Pugh wrote: > I interpreted Mark as saying, we should forge ahead with the things like > standardizing test names, and when the reference branch is ready, we tackle > it. > > Having read most of the individual

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

I interpreted Mark as saying, we should forge ahead with the things like standardizing test names, and when the reference branch is ready, we tackle it. Having read most of the individual commits, all 1405 and counting, I think that bringing this code base in is going to be a major effort, and

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Mark 2.0 speaks in riddles, which I'm not great at interpreting but I think you're implying that the so-called "ref-branch" is not going to be merged into anything, which is depressing because I now care much less about that branch. Markus, Jason -- lets get the standardization on with! ~

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

> I hope that doesn’t sound too negative Not to me. But I'm a little confused what your ultimate stand is on these renames Marcus is proposing. I'm hearing different messages in different sections of your email. > There are already so many conflicts, you will cry and then realize there are >

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

I hope that doesn’t sound too negative, “clinging” never sounds as positive as I’d like and I do negative plenty well without doing it by accident. Not a pessimistic statement though, I made it even better than I was planning or remembering I could or however that works. Resistance is built into

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

There are already so many conflicts, you will cry and then realize there are more. Even worse, some things have been changed due to their cost/benefit failings, things that someone, somewhere, will cling to like a life vest. The ref branch waits for no man, and expects the same. It lives on

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

I'm fine with standardization, whichever convention we choose. I have a slight preference for FooTest, for the same reason Gus mentioned, but any standard is better than none here IMO. > prefer that we not make a sweeping change like this until after Mark's "ref > branch" is reconciled

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

I look forward to a standardization on *something* but would prefer that we not make a sweeping change like this until after Mark's "ref branch" is reconciled. I don't want that to hang over the project indefinitely, but we can wait; we've not had this standardization yet for many years, after

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

FWIW, I'm not really in favor of the convention Lucene adopted. I probably lost track of the debate and failed to object which is on me, but I guess it was because that was the lower number of changes there? It's certainly much less legible in the IDE to have a wall of classes all starting with T.

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Makes sense to me. > On Feb 20, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Marcus Eagan wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now that Lucene’s standardization is complete and I believe enforced, should > we discuss if we could bring the same consistency to Solr? > > Best, > > Marcus > -- > Marcus Eagan >

Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Hi all, Now that Lucene’s standardization is complete and I believe enforced, should we discuss if we could bring the same consistency to Solr? Best, Marcus -- Marcus Eagan