From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T04:13:48+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Monday 14 June 2004 12:01, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.com] :
> > I absolutely could not accept less than what I implemented myself.
> > Diplomacy is tough to have when you simply don't have the room to
> > compromise on some things.
>
> This says more about you than you realise, Sean. By the by, did you
> actually write a patch for Test::Unit to add test execution order
> and alternative outputters to Test::Unit and have it rejected for
> the reasons you claimed (and I snipped)? If not, then your argument
> has no basis. If so, then you have a point.
>
> I personally suspect the latter.

Actually, I just found a lot of little things were sort of annoying me with 
Test/Unit.  It was so long ago, I can hardly remember what they all were(I 
think it was just a pain in general to figure out how to create batteries of 
tests and to re-use tests with multiple batteries, but don't quote me, it's 
been too long since the last time I tried).  I wrote celsoft.com/Battery back 
then and it did exactly what I wanted.  I considered writing a patch for 
Test/Unit (it was my first consideration), but then I thought I probably 
couldn't get it completely re-worked the way I needed it, so why bother 
pressuring someone I don't know to make a bunch of changes they probably 
won't agree with.  I decided it was simpler and easier to just write a basic 
test framework with the features I needed and use that.  It works great for 
me.  Really, really nicely.

I hope that it says about me "I don't accept less than what I need, and when I 
can't get what I want, I make it happen anyway."  I'm sure your 
interpretation will be different though.

	Sean O'Dell