> I can see the point behind this, and to an extent I agree: if a feature is broken and there's no intention of fixing it then it > should simply be removed, because otherwise people (like me - see my earlier post) are going to waste a lot of time trying to > get something to work that just won't. But I have to be honest, and say that using <exec> is really a last resort.
So exactly what is wrong with the nUnit2 task that makes it so broken? Note that I haven't tried it yet, so if it becomes obvious on use, it'll take me a while to get there. > I'd pretty much rather write my own custom task than do this, especially if it's something that's going to be used by > other people in the company. However, since many people are going to want to do at least some automated testing, and > since this is something that should be encouraged (how tired are we all of using buggy software?), I really do think > it's worth the effort of fixing NUnit2 for the 1.0 release. Honestly, I think *I'd* rather start with the existing task and work on fixing that up. If I had half the expertise I claim on my resume, I'd give it a shot myself. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Nant-users mailing list Nant-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
