anonym wrote (09 May 2014 14:24:40 GMT) :
> Because of all this I've finally concluded that I would prefer to keep
> on maintaining our "sikuli/rjb adapter" for the time being, and possibly
> return to this upstreaming process if Rukuli shows promise to at least
> stay maintained for the foreseeable future.
Thanks a lot for this summary! I agree with your conclusions.
The only thing that scares me a bit is the need to maintain our own
Ruby/RJB/Sikuli adapter, and the lack of people with the right skills
+ availability + reliability on our team. Anyhow, I can certainly
live with that fear, and I guess we can still reconsider whenever this
adapter breaks and needs to be updated.
Still, I think I would be more comfortable with this decision if
someone tried running our test suite in a Jessie environment, first:
if it works fine, then we'll know that we won't have to fix our custom
adapter for a while, and this would considerably alleviate my fears.
I've created #7212 to this end.
Do you mind if I assign this ticket to you (anonym), set it as
a blocker to make a decision on #6400, and flag it for the 2.0
milestone (on the grounds that making sure our test suite's
dependencies won't break to often is definitely an important
sustainability matter)?
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
