On Sep 25, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Dave Thomas wrote:

>
> 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.

Neither do I.  But on the overlapping feature set, requiring 'test/ 
unit' should give the old assertion names.

> 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.

Agreed.

And I'd be happy to start targeting mini/test semantics.  But it would  
be nice to have the compatibility mode for stuff that lives in both  
1.8 and 1.9 (e.g. rake).

-- 
-- Jim Weirich
-- jim.weirich / gmail.com