10/05/14 14:08, intrigeri wrote:
> 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.
Sure. The core of the adapter actually is very simple, so I'm pretty
confident it will not cause much isssues, and even if it does, I'm even
more sure that I will be able to resolve them.
> 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)?
Please do!
FWIW, my personal fear has been that RJB would break with Java 7, which
would make Jessie's potential discontinuation of Java 6 [1] a problem,
but I've at least confirmed that RJB plays well with Java 7 (and Sikuli
script reportedly does, too).
Cheers!
[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675495
