I have to agree, on the documentation side.
miniunit is said to be a 'drop-in' replacement for Test::Unit.
Having a short description of how exactly to do the replacement
would be extremely helpful just for testing out whether it indeed
works. We have to consider that Test::Unit, whatever its problems
may be, is documented well in various books. If we replace it,
we have to think about the documentation side, too.

Regards,    Martin.

At 01:36 08/07/15, Trans wrote:
>Hi--
>
>my objection to miniunit it mini/spec. a spec library has the
>potential for being extremely light weight (rspec is over done imho);
>wrapping a spec interface around a unit test lib is not light weight
>and is kind of hacky. plus, we should consider the effects of ruby
>shipping with a standard spec dsl. are we ready to standardize around
>mini/spec's? i'm not even sure what the syntax is yet since I have
>found no documentation on it (is there any?). maybe minunit would be
>better considered once the lib is well documented.
>
>T.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst / it.aoyama.ac.jp