On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Jim Weirich wrote:

> 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.

A lot has been removed (the GUI, testsuites, and so on). I personally  
don't miss any of that, annd don't feel that we need to reimplement  
them in minitest.

But I'd 100% support adding back compatible assertions. If we did  
that, though, minitest/unit should be self contained and have no  
dependencies on test/unit: all dependencies should flow the other way.


Dave