Yes I'm also in favor of moving to a 1.0 version for our upcoming release targeting the Spark 1.x series. Since we'll also be subsequently releasing a version targeting the Spark 2.x series, I would also like to suggest that we name that version 2.0. This version naming scheme would allow us to easily associate a SystemML version with the Spark series that it targets, thus reducing confusion for a user. Rather than view a 2.0 version as a successor to 1.0, let's view it instead as simply a naming scheme that corresponds to the targeted version of Spark.
So, 1.0 would be our upcoming release targeting Spark 1.x, and 2.0 would be our upcoming release targeting Spark 2.x. -- Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Frederick R Reiss <frre...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I would favor declaring a 1.0 release. Having two digits in the minor release > is a bit awkward, and the project has progressed enough in terms of > functionality and stability to warrant a major release number bump. > > Fred > > Luciano Resende ---08/24/2016 11:19:20 AM---With the decision to have sort of > two code streams, one to support 1.0x and another to support 2.x, > > From: Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Date: 08/24/2016 11:19 AM > Subject: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0 > > > > > With the decision to have sort of two code streams, one to support 1.0x and > another to support 2.x, I was wondering that we should call the next 1.x > release our SystemML 1.0.0 release. > > Thoughts ? > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > >
