Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Hi, I am + 1 for it too. Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On 3 Jun 2021 Thu at 06:55 Houston Putman wrote: > +1 > > I also am very much on the *Test side. Now that Lucene and Solr are split, > I don’t think theres much reason to base the Solr rule on Lucene’s. > > - Houston > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

+1 I also am very much on the *Test side. Now that Lucene and Solr are split, I don’t think theres much reason to base the Solr rule on Lucene’s. - Houston On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:49 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > +1. > > Either way is fine, as long as its enforced. > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, 05:12 Er

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 be

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 > dev@solr.apache.org given t

Re: Revisiting Standardized Test Names in Solr

Hi all, I am reviving this thread but perhaps it should be moved to dev@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 con