+1. Either way is fine, as long as its enforced.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, 05:12 Eric Pugh, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am reviving this thread but perhaps it should be moved to > [email protected] 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 convention, > I bet. > > Curious about people's thoughts: > > Marcussorealheis:solr marcuseagan$ find . -name "Test*.java" | wc -l > 493 > Marcussorealheis:solr marcuseagan$ find . -name "*Test.java" | wc -l > 753 > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:55 AM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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) >> > > > -- > Marcus Eagan > > > _______________________ > *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. > >
