Also along the same lines as the JS discussion, I think this is a good thing
to talk about for 3.1. Let's let the core team focus on getting 3.0 out the
gate first, they're too close to a release to get bogged down in an issue
that will surely arouse a lot of impassioned opinions.
-Norman
On Jun
So am I.
And every client project I've worked on for the past three years has
used RSpec, whether that's been my choice or not. More often not.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
wrote:
> Just for endorsing the stats, I'm one of those Rspec users :)
>
> Rodrigo.
>
> Em 14-
Just for endorsing the stats, I'm one of those Rspec users :)
Rodrigo.
Em 14-06-2010 14:26, Allen escreveu:
Along the same lines as the default javascript library discussion [1],
why don't we switch the default test library to RSpec? The stats [2]
posted by Xaviar in the other thread seem to su
Along the same lines as the default javascript library discussion [1],
why don't we switch the default test library to RSpec? The stats [2]
posted by Xaviar in the other thread seem to support that RSpec is the
preferred way to test.
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thre
