Re: Smoke testing Ruby

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> > I thought that was the plan -- a merge of all the Ruby test suites,
        [...]
> 
> My attempts to make this happen generally ran into the following roadblocks:
> 
> - everyone wants to use a different testing framework (test/unit, miniunit,
> rspec, minispec, runit, minirunit) and refuses to yield (though we're more
> than happy to eliminate all our minirunit stuff)
> - everyone has a different idea how to structure tests...one file per
> class-under test, one file per class/method combination, one file per related
> behavior in a given class, and so on
> - everyone wants to be a hero and "own" their wonderful test suite

Isn't this where Matz gets to use his casting vote? :-)  Iff he
decides not to, then he could nominate a proxy, perhaps?  I'm not
about to tell him how to do things: this is just a suggestion of one
way to move things forward, in the hope someone thinks of a better
way.  Deciding this is necessary, and doing so democratically is
difficult because we can't be sure everyone is included who needs to
be included, has had their say, etc.  But it would be a real shame
if this stopped progress on something which would be very supportive
of Ruby development.

        Hugh