Jim Weirich wrote:
> 
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:28 AM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
>>
>>> Don't break!!  test/unit (using mini/test) should be compatible IMO.
>>
>> It already isn't compatible. Matz made that decision when allowing it
>> in. So let's not carry past mistakes forward for compatibility reasons.
> 
> Does it make sense to have require 'test/unit' be a test/unit compatible
> shim on top of mini/test?  Then require 'mini/test' can use all the
> improved nomenclature and techniques.

+1

In fact I like mini/unit because of that short code, but there is
some compatibility/look issues.

I want to believe Ryan's post:
[ruby-core:17200] miniunit to replace test/unit in 1.9(?
> I proposed replacing it with miniunit, which is 100% compatible on the test side (but not on the runner side).

-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net