Us marketing guys like to use major versions to also refer to big leaps in
new use cases and market segments that couldn't effectively be served
One could argue that SVM might be in that category.
However, if you do some kind of major refactoring of architecture that
doesn't necessarily reflect immediately with new end user capabilities,
that would be a big advancement of a minor version. Ex: .0 to .5
In summary, 1.10.0 sounds like a well fleshed out "version 1", but we all
know that MADlib is far more venerable and well used than that.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io>
> > Hello,
> > I would like to suggest that the next release of MADlib be called v1.10.
> > Recently I have been referring to it as v1.9.2.
> > However, MADlib follows 3-digit semantic versioning MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
> > http://semver.org/
> > where:
> > * MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
> > * MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible
> > manner, and
> > * PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
> > Since the next release will add functionality, it should be MINOR.
> > I actually made a mistake in naming v1.9.1 since it added functionality
> > was versioned as if it was a PATCH, which it wasn’t.
Global Head, Big Data Communities