Maybe simply apply the standard in both places? On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:04 AM Eric Pugh <[email protected]> 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 commits, all 1405 and counting, I think > that bringing this code base in is going to be a major effort, and really > isn’t going to be easy to bring in bit by bit. The changes are to > everything, and I think unwinding the changes into “chunks” is going to be > even more herculean…. The changes touch everything, and honestly, since > it’s all about restoring speed and paying down accumulated tech debt, I > totally get why it’s so intrusive. It’s a revolutionary change, not an > evolutionary one. > > > > On Feb 26, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 more. > > > Sounds very much like you're saying that the test renames will cause > really painful merge-conflicts, and that renames should wait because > of the pain involved in reconciling ref_impl. > > But... > > You can’t let a specter freeze the tireless day to day shifting and > shuffling of names and rules and locations. > > > Sounds like you're saying that we shouldn't let fear of ref_impl > complications stop us from doing renames, file-moves, etc. > > Sorry if I'm just being daft, but can you clarify please? Are you > saying that we should avoid big changes because of the ugly merges > with ref_impl? Or that we shouldn't let fear of ref_impl > complications stop us from anything on master? Or something else > altogether? > > Best, > > Jason > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:50 AM Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 the equation - this isn’t rock and roll, I’m a science bachelor. > Though only a small few liberal arts classes made me go, so I wouldn’t > trust the cert myself. Anyway, I learned from multiple Star Wars movies > what to do here, you have to setup an ambush on the trench run and then > just make the thing look like a huge black star. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:38 AM Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 ridiculous speed and stability and throws mergability to the > crows. > > It could not be merged into anything and survive, but it can absorb > anything, as long as it behaves like a boss or can be jostled into doing > so. So fear not for the fearless. You can’t let a specter freeze the > tireless day to day shifting and shuffling of names and rules and > locations. I swear, enough lucky shifts and this thing can rise to meet the > living. I’ve seen it see dead people. > > End of the day, if the ref branch can’t survive even a large and lengthy > divergence, if that is the freeze in its tracks, it’s not at all what I’ve > said ive been working on and so does it even matter? > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:39 AM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > Personally I disagree about the need to wait. It'd be one thing if > there was an agreed-upon plan or a timeframe for merging "ref-branch". > But since that's not the case today, I don't think it makes sense to > ignore concrete/mergeable improvements. It seems like a "bird in the > hand vs two in the bush" situation. Especially when there are > strategies for handling the conflicts that might arise with Mark's > "ref-branch" (e.g. do the test renames on both master and ref_impl). > > Jason > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:44 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > all. > > That said, it would be good to choose the standard name now so that there > is less to change later. Can someone dig up the statistics on Solr's name > choice to see if there is a clear winner (e.g. >60%)? I don't have a > strong opinion on whatever the standard should be so long as there is a > standard :-) > > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > Maybe given that the projects are splitting Solr can Stick with FooTest not > TestFoo? I think *Test suffix is more common in Solr... (though I haven't > attempted to quantify it) > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Eric Pugh < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Makes sense to me. > > > On Feb 20, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Marcus Eagan <[email protected]> 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 > > > _______________________ > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | > http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of > whether attachments are marked as such. > > > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > -- > - Mark > > http://about.me/markrmiller > > > -- > - Mark > > http://about.me/markrmiller > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > > _______________________ > *Eric Pugh **| *Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 > | http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > of whether attachments are marked as such. > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
