>
> Why? All that is needed is to be able to run the same tests on all  
> fork.

So when magma - written in squeak, requires one variant with complex  
facilities such as remote invocation of images, and Seaside written in  
pharo requires another. The integrator who wishes to test both in one  
image may find irreconcilable differences. Not all testing code uses  
the lowest common denominator.

So what will happen is the multiple variants of SUnit will exist in a  
creative tension, to the extent that evolving any of them will become  
virtually impossible.

A trivial example, I prefer that shouldInheritSelectors be specified  
explicitly, most implementations set it automatically for Abstract  
classes. An "improvement" as simple as this will never happen. Another  
trivial example, there are no users of LongTestCase in the squeak  
image, having a general test categorisation mechanism will provide the  
same facility. Write one test case that required LongTestCase, and you  
force me to remain compatible.

What is so wrong with treating SUnit as a loadable package with  
maintainers and conversations to discuss its future, so that it may  
actually evolve. You seem to think it is a bad thing.

Keith

p.s. I think Cuis will be great for squeak, because...

1. as long as it loads in Cuis, it will load in most places.
2. The Cuis version are like to be simpler than others
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100126/9ca0b061/attachment.htm