Hi Thomas, i did a import of your patches. Thanks a lot for you great work and your endless patience.
I did also a small update to python-selenium_2.53.2+dfsg1-1 with a newer dependency to selenium-firefoxdriver. For the related selenium-firefoxdriver package i did also a update to the newer version 2.53.2. The upload of this one will take a small while because i need a update of my pending (sponsored) upload of selenium-firefoxdriver_2.48.0-1. It makes sense to update this package related to python-selenium because it contains the non-free webdriver parts of selenium for firefox. Regards Sascha Am 05.06.2016 um 21:07 schrieb Sascha Girrulat: > Hi, > > omg sry. Id used a mail client on a other workstation and it filtered > all this mail into a spam folder. I'm really sorry i know that my > responses are not really fast but something like that should not happen. > Please accept my apologies. > > I just saw the upload and then i started to search whats going wrong and > found this mails. > > There a some more smaller bugs in the package left if you like i could > apply the patchsets and start to fix them immediately. > > Regards > Sascha > > Am 31.05.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:03:05PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>>> This timeframe doesn't designate a person as MIA, sorry. >>> >>> Hum... ok. What's the usual timeframe then? >> >> Usually we start "pestering" people after they are inactive for more >> than a year. >> There are exception of course. >> >>> The unresponsiveness of maintainers combined with the strong ownership >>> of packages is one thing which very frustrating in Debian. It gives the >>> feeling that no mater what, we can't do anything. >> >> Yes, I'm sure you know that's a common complaint from a lot of people >> about how debian works. The situation improved though. >> >>> Would you consider then, that I is ok to NMU the package, to upgrade to >>> the latest upstream release and address the 2 other open bugs, plus some >>> packaging clean-ups (if needed, as I haven't checked yet...)? >> >> An NMU is always fine, assuming the usual procedure, that I'm sure you >> know very well, is followed. >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
