https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097612 --- Comment #5 from Karolina Surma <ksurma@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you, Jakub and José for the comments on the package. I agree this is uncommon situation with package already having the dist-git repository. I see your point here. When evaluating how to make it straight properly, the closest policy seemed to me the one on reclaiming the retired package, which requires a re-review after 8 weeks. I'll build package in the existing repository in Pagure once the Python 3.11 side tag is merged. > I am a bit confused by the versioning (pre-releasing 0.Y.Z.something > versions feels like an overkill) but that is an upstream decision that > I am not going to question. And it is IMHO packaged properly. Thank you for the version feedback. I see that according to the semver 2.0 specification, leading 0 already communicates that it's an alpha (https://semver.org/#spec-item-4) which, together with verbose info in the description, probably states the project's maturity clearly enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097612 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
