Re: [nant-dev] (no subject)

[Tomas Restrepo]

Mike, I'm certainly not saying drop NUnit 2.0 support in favor of 2.1 support. I'm still asking what those short commings in the runner where. I haven't seen anything on the nunit mailing list, at least not for quite some time. We can't fix it if you won't tell us what the issues are. I'm not getting a lot of complaints on it on the nunit mailing lists. So please tell me what the issues are. I did post about some of them once. I even got a reply from you, but it seems no one still got the crux of the problem. So it seems everyone is just content with how NUnit 2.0 works. I have to admit I had an easier time with the original implementation of nunit2 support than this one. I completely admit that I made a serious error in judgement using the fork attribute. This seemed to cause quite a bit of confusion, but I very very intentionally wrote it to use TestDomain. I knew what the plans for that interface were. I also knew that the interface RemoteTestRunner was much more likely to change than TestDomain. If you want to take it over, be my guest. I'm pretty much dropping NUnit 2.0 myself, and will probably look to either using a different framework or sticking with v1. NUnit 2.0 made it way to complex for my taste to do things how *I* wanted them.   -- Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED]