On Sep 25, 2008, at 06:59 , 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.


That is EXACTLY what test/unit.rb is and it has been like that and  
released for review for almost a year...

Yes... I'm frustrated (and pre-caffeine). Calibrate accordingly.