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.
-austin
···
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com
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
···
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.