> I completely agree -- having a testing framework that depends on an > external package being installed is almost as bad as not having one > at all. > > Batteries included, and all that...
Very true. I like the approach that Russell has taken in the patches attached to the ticket. Having a configurable test module and runner gives other test runners a place to hook in, which is all that's really needed for folks to use whatever they want. This is similar to how the setuptools test command works, but more open-ended (which is good). The only thing I'd change would be to let the test_runner get all of sys.argv that manage doesn't care about. > Now, what's the license of nose? Perhaps we could bundle it with > Django (as we've done with PyDispatcher and Simplejson)? It's LGPL. If that's not liberal enough, and you do decide that you'd like to bundle it, I'd be happy to talk about contributing it, or whatever parts you want, under another license. JP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
