Nathan Beyer wrote:
On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
>> TestNG...(including me)
>
> I don't understand - what do you mean?
Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
instead...
Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
seems just as capable as TestNG.
There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4
comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just
don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long
for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:)
-Nathan
>
> geir
>
>>
>> Paulex - being desperate
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
