Hi, and sorry for the late reply. 1) OK 2) I use it on both stable, testing and unstable, but I'm OK with not having this available in testing or stable: in fact I think it is better not to have the buggy version available at all than to have it and then suffer potential data loss. 3) As you can see from my late reply, I don't really have much time to spend in these matters. That being said, I wouldn't mind joining the JS maintainers, even if I'm unsure if anything good would come out of it. In particular, your e-mail suggests to me that being a JS maintainer still means finding a sponsor, which really is what I've been feeling as stalling my contributions (this NMU an example, but also others like this ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=772135 ).
If you still feel it would be useful to have me joining in, please let me know. Best regards, On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:02 AM Val Markovic <v...@markovic.io> wrote: > OK, so talking to pabs@ on debian-mentors, seems like a good approach > to take here is to do NMU uploads to unstable and stable. I'm happy to > do the work there (short of uploading, since I can't). > > Second part: Marcos, do you use this package on stable, testing or > unstable? Also note that dirty.js has been removed from testing branch > because of the RC bug and thus won't be in stretch. So if you'll be > using stable (which will be stretch soon), this NMU business isn't > going to help you much. > > Third part: it seems like you might want to join Debian JS > Maintainers. :) It looks like they could use the help, you use their > packages and have already prepared an NMU upload once, so you know > your way around deb packaging. Something to consider, especially if > you use this package and would like to see it continue being > maintained. :) >
