On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:

> I'm open to suggestions... the only other thing that test/unit does  
> is call:
>
>  Mini::Test.autorun
>
> so I could see people either:
>
> 1) sticking to "require 'test/unit'" as the autorunning require
> 2) adding a mini/???.rb that is an autorunning require.
> 3) switching to "require 'mini/test'" and adding a call to  
> Mini::Test.autorun where they see fit.
>
> I punted and decided that test/unit was fine for now... thinking  
> that eventually it'll be a file with just a call to autorun.

My biggest issue here is that I don't feel that mini/test is well  
packaged going forward. We have this strange situation where it has  
been overlaid on top of the test/unit tree, but in reality it is a  
different, and incompatible, beast. This will only cause confusion  
going forward.

I'd much rather that mini/test was its own, self-contained, library.  
Remove test/xxx from the standard library, and package mini/xxx to  
make it self contained. Along the way, rename stuff slightly to make  
more sense (mini is not really a good top-level module name--minitest  
would make more sense). Then you could do

    require 'minitest/unit'

and get the auto runner and everything else you needed, or minitest/ 
spec for that side of things, etc.

I know we're supposed to be frozen, but this code really was put in  
late, and it's a critical component for the Ruby community. I'd like  
to appeal for some kind of special case to be made here so that this  
can be tidied up.


Dave