|
Re: NUnit Version Numbering: msg#00016windows.dotnet.nunit.devel
Kamil Skalski wrote: Because I knew that this might cause special problems with mono, I posted on Sorry I didn't chime in sooner -- this problem (I wrote the mono bug you are referencing) would be fixed by having a different build identifier for .NET 2.0 versions of NUnit. You mentioned the different version in the bug, but another possibility would be to name things differently. That is, the 1.x build remains nunit-* and the 2.x build would be nunit2-*. I think mono needs to continue "shipping" with nunit so that users can run mono's own unit tests to test the class libraries and whatnot. Also, it makes for a nice OOTB experience IMO :) Right now for them to run their .NET 2.x assembly tests, they have a .NET 2.x-compiled nunit binary in their source tree that does not get installed. I was able to "workaround" in a real PIA fashion to get the above bug to not show up. Anyways, there's my 2p :) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | RE: Active User Stories: 00016, Rubenstein, Shmarya |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: NUnit Version Numbering: 00016, Charlie Poole |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NUnit Version Numberingi: 00016, Kamil Skalski |
| Next by Thread: | RE: NUnit Version Numbering: 00016, Charlie Poole |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |