On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Dave Thomas <dave / pragprog.com> wrote:
> 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 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.

suggestion += 1

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca