Can you elaborate on the features that TestUnit offers that rubyunit 
doesn't?
nathaniel / talbott.ws wrote:

>>From the README:
>
>Unit testing is making waves all over the place, largely due to the fact
>that it is a core practice of XP. While XP is great, unit testing has
>been around for a long time and has always been a good idea. One of the
>keys to good unit testing, though, is not just writing tests, but having
>tests. What's the difference? Well, if you just _write_ a test and throw
>it away, you have no guarantee that something won't change later which
>breaks your code. If, on the other hand, you _have_ tests (obviously you
>have to write them first), and run them as often as possible, you slowly
>build up a wall of things that cannot break without you immediately
>knowing about it. This is when unit testing hits its peak usefulness.
>
>Enter Test::Unit, a framework for unit testing in Ruby, helping you to
>design, debug and evaluate your code by making it easy to write and have
>tests for it.
>
>
>This version includes some fixes to the RubyUnit compatibility layer
>(thanks to Matt Armstrong for identifying them). It also includes the
>patch posted by Dave Thomas in [ruby-talk:34743] for selecting tests to
>run on the commandline (with a few slight modifications). There are few
>other miscellaneous changes; feel free to read about them out in the
>ChangeLog.
>
>Grab the fun at http://testunit.talbott.ws/.
>
>Happy testing,
>
>
>Nathaniel
>
><:((><
>+ - -
>| RoleModel Software, Inc.
>| EQUIP VI
> 
>
>