On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:52 , Dave Thomas wrote:

>
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Ryan Davis 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.
>>>
>
>> That is EXACTLY what test/unit.rb is and it has been like that and  
>> released for review for almost a year...
>
> Well, to be fair, it isn't really compatible.

where? I've done a lot to make sure that it is 100% compatible for  
tests. It is NOT compatible with the old internals, and that is out of  
scope for this project. We ensured that if that was a blocker that it  
was taken care of by releasing test/unit as a gem.