Hi,

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<headius / headius.com> wrote:
> * Take over RubySpec as a fork and begin to maintain it as a secondary
suite for MRI. Encourage contributors and committers to write specs
rather than tests.

I really like this approach. I would be glad to help with maintaining this.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Tanaka Akira <akr / fsij.org> wrote:
> RubySpec uses "should" style which is not recommended by RSpec now

This is true. I believe it would be easy to modify the existing
codebase to use "expect" style instead and I volunteer to do this.

> Larger test framework tends to cause a problem (such as SEGV) in the test framework itself.

I'd say that a pure Ruby test framework that creates more SEGV is a
good thing. I want to know of any SEGV in pure Ruby, whatever the
means to get it!

I can't remember encountering actual unwanted problems with mspec.

> Changing a tool is not enough for readability.

This is true in theory (and it is possible to write obscure code in
Ruby and very clear code in C). Still, in practice, the tools and
conventions make a big impact (like the average Ruby code vs the
average C code).